Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pura Ram @ Praveen Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28477) on 2 July, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:28477]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6337/2025
Pura Ram @ Praveen Kumar S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Kumharon Ks Vas Keriya Police Station Chitalwana
District Jalore Rajasthan (Presentiy Lodged In Sub Jail Sanchore
District Jalore )
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Reshma D/o Purkha Ram, R/o Keriya Police Station
Chitalwana District Jalore Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gulab Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek, PP
Mr. Teja Ram (complainant)
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
02/07/2025
1. The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner
under Section 483 BNSS, who has been arrested in connection
with FIR No.47/2025 dated 01.04.2025 registered at Police Station
Chitalwana District Jalore for the offences under Sections 332(b),
87, 64(1) and 308(2) BNS.
2. Learned counsel Mr. Teja Ram puts in appearance on behalf
of respondent No.2-complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in this case while alleging that he
forcefully committed sexual intercourse with the complainant.
While drawing attention of this Court towards the chargesheet the
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is clear from the
perusal of the statement of the complainant recorded under
Section 183 BNSS that it is a case of consent, as the complainant,
[2025:RJ-JD:28477] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6337/2025]
who is a mature lady, went along with the petitioner to Surat and
thereafter, to Pune. He further submits that complainant has
stated that as she was not having cordial relations with her
husband, she was inclined to marry the present petitioner. He also
draws attention of this Court towards the Missing Person Report
and submits that there was no allegation of rape made by the
complainant against the petitioner and the same being the
afterthought, she has falsely levelled the allegations of rape
against the petitioner under the influence of her family members.
4. On the above grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner
implored the Court to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
application and submits that the complainant in her statement
recorded under Section 183 BNSS has specifically stated that the
petitioner committed rape upon her in her room and forcibly took
her away in a vehicle to Surat and thereafter, to Pune. He also
submits that complainant has also stated that though she was
inclined to marry the petitioner but he, without her consent and
will, committed rape upon her. Learned Public Prosecutor, thus,
urges, that the offence being of serious nature, the instant bail
application warrants rejection.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. This Court finds that the complainant, in her statement
recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, has specifically stated that
the petitioner, without her consent, committed rape upon her in
her room and forcibly took her away to Surat and then, to Pune,
and when the complainant was inclined to marry the petitioner, he
[2025:RJ-JD:28477] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6337/2025]
committed rape upon her. This court finds it appropriate to refer to
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Rajasthan vs. N.K., (2000) 5 SCC 30 wherein
following pertinent observation has been made regarding the
testimony of prosecutrix in relation to offence of rape as defined
under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
"17. For the offence of rape as defined in Section 375 of the
Indian Penal Code, the sexual intercourse should have been
against the will of the woman or without her consent. Consent
is immaterial in certain circumstances covered by clauses
thirdly to sixthly, the last one being when the woman is under
16 years of age. Based on these provisions, an argument is
usually advanced on behalf of the accused charged with rape
that absence of proof of want of consent where the prosecutrix
is not under 16 years of age takes the assault out of the
purview of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. Certainly
consent is no defence if the victim has been proved to be
under 16 years of age. If she be of 16 years of age of above,
her consent cannot be presumed; an inference as to consent
can be drawn if only based on evidence of probabilities of the
case. The victim of rape stating on oath that she was forcibly
subjected to sexual intercourse or that the act was done
without her consent, has to be believed and accepted like any
other testimony unless there is material available to draw an
inference as to her consent or else the testimony of
prosecutrix is such as would be inherently improbable."
8. In view of the above and having regard to the entirety of
facts and circumstances of the case as available on record and
without commenting on the merits or demerits of the case, this
Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant indulgence
of bail to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed by the petitioner
under Section 483 BNSS, stands dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
134-/Devesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
