The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused in a rape case, citing an unexplained delay of 4-5 years in filing the First Information Report (FIR). The decision was rendered by Justice Kuldeep Mathur, who presided over the case as a vacation judge.
Background of the Case
The appellant, aged 27, hails from Achina (Haisab), Police Station Panchodi, District Nagaur. He was arrested in connection with FIR No. 23/2024, lodged at Police Station Panchodi, for alleged offenses under Sections 354D, 506, and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and various sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The prosecutrix, Pappu Devi, alleged that she was subjected to sexual assault by the appellant approximately 4-5 years prior to the lodging of the FIR. She claimed that the appellant had threatened to make her obscene videos and photographs viral, although no such materials were recovered during the investigation.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Delay in Filing FIR: One of the central issues in the case was the significant delay in filing the FIR. The prosecutrix did not provide a plausible explanation for waiting 4-5 years to report the alleged assault.
2. Consistency of Allegations: The court noted discrepancies in the prosecutrix’s statements. No allegations of sexual assault were made in the initial FIR or in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The allegations surfaced only in her statement under Section 164 CrPC.
3. Evidence of Threats: The prosecutrix claimed that the appellant threatened her with the release of obscene videos and photographs, but no such evidence was found.
4. Communication Between Parties: The court observed that the appellant and prosecutrix had exchanged over 980 calls, indicating they were in constant touch.
Court’s Decision
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court decided to grant bail to the appellant. The defense counsel, Mr. Prem Sukh Choudhary, argued that the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of evidence weakened the prosecution’s case. The Public Prosecutor, Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations.
Justice Mathur, in his order, stated:
> “This Court prima facie finds that no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecutrix for lodging the FIR after a huge delay of 4-5 years. This Court also prima facie finds that the appellant and prosecutrix were in constant touch through mobile phone and more than 980 calls were exchanged between them on different dates. This Court also prima facie finds that no obscene videos and photographs have been allegedly used by the appellant for pressurizing the prosecutrix.”
The court concluded that there was no apprehension of the appellant influencing the prosecutrix or fleeing from justice. Therefore, the court ordered:
Also Read
> “The accused-appellant arrested in connection with FIR No. 23/2024, Police Station Panchodi, District Nagaur shall be released on bail during the pendency of the trial; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.”
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 904/2024
Bench: Justice Kuldeep Mathur
Lawyers: Mr. Prem Sukh Choudhary (for the appellant), Mr. B.R. Bishnoi (Public Prosecutor)
