Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sitaram Son Of Sawatya @ Sawatram vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 September, 2023
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2023:RJ-JP:23058]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12675/2022
Sitaram Son Of Sawatya @ Sawatram, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident Of Amavara, Tehsil Bamanwas, Distt. Sawaimadhopur
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through P.P
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Pachauri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP None present for the complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN ORDER Order pronounced on ::: 15/09/2023 Order reserved on ::: 01/08/2023
1. The petitioner has filed this miscellaneous bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C, who is having apprehension of his arrest in connection with the F.I.R. No.135/2022 registered at Police Station Soorwal, District Sawaimadhopur for offences under Sections 457 & 376(2)(n) IPC.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the relationship between the petitioner and prosecutrix were consensual in nature. She herself admitted in the FIR that for last two years, she used to talk on phone with the petitioner and she went with the petitioner at several places on her own free will. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:03:44 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:23058] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-12675/2022] Counsel for the petitioner contended that the incident allegedly happened on 25.05.2022 in the house of the prosecutrix is highly improbable. The prosecutrix alleged in the FIR that on 25.05.2022, the petitioner came inside the house of the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her. She further alleged that at that time, her mother and grandmother were also present in the house but very surprisingly, she did not make any hue and crye. He thus, contended that the story put-forth by the prosecutrix in the FIR is highly improbable and cannot be accepted to be true. He contended that the prosecutrix on her own free will left her parental home and she was never induced by the petitioner for entering into relationship by the petitioner. He submits that the prosecutrix has lodged the above FIR for blackmailing the petitioner. It is also argued by counsel representing the petitioner that charge-sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. has been filed in this matter before the learned court below for offences under Sections 342, 457, 376 (2)(n) IPC after obtaining warrant under Section 37 of Police Act. However, since the proceedings under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have not attained finality, there would be no bar for grating anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) Bharat Choudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., 2003(8) SCC 77
(ii) Ravindra Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (1) SCC
684.
(iii) Bimla Tiwari Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2023 SCC Online SC 51.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:03:44 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:23058] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-12675/2022]
(iv) Amar Nath Neogi Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2018 (11) SCC,
797.
(v) Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (1) SCC 694.
3. He thus, prays that the instant application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. may be allowed and the petitioner may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR No.135/2022 PS Soorwal, District Sawaimadhopur.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submits that the prosecutrix has levelled serious allegation of rape against the petitioner and therefore, looking to the gravity of offence, anticipatory bail should not be grated to the petitioner. He also submits that charge-sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 342, 457 and 376 (2)(n) IPC and, therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 730, this bail application is not maintainable.
5. Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant/victim to oppose the bail application.
6. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar and perused the material available on record. Apparently, in this case, now the police has filed the charge-sheet and, therefore, (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:03:44 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:23058] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-12675/2022] custodial interrogation is not required in this matter. It is also evident from record that only warrant under Section 37 of the Police Act has been obtained by the police to file charge-sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C., while proceedings under Section 82 & 83 Cr.P.C have not attained finality.
7. In my considered opinion, it cannot be held that anticipatory bail application is not maintainable as the petitioner was not declared absconder and no proclamation was issued against the petitioner till filing of the anticipatory bail application. Merely issuance of warrant under Section 37 of the Police Act does not mean that the petitioner is absconding. In case of Bharat Choudhary (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail will be maintainable after charge-sheet is filed or cognizance is taken. In case of Ravindra Saxena (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court considering the same situation held that after filing of the charge- sheet, anticipatory bail application can be entertained. In case of Amar Nath Neogi (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the identical situation and considering the fact that charge-sheet has been filed, directed the accused to appear before the trial court and submit his bail bonds. In case of Lavesh (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the person who is "absconding" and declared as "proclaimed offender" is not entitled to seek anticipatory bail application normally. It was made clear in the aforesaid case of Lavesh (supra) that when the accused is absconding and has also been declared "proclaimed offender", case of granting anticipatory bail does not arise. In this case, (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:03:44 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:23058] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-12675/2022] while laying down the law, Hon'ble Apex Court has used word "normally" in reference to the anticipatory bail application, preferred by a "proclaimed offender". Neither the provisions under Section 82 Cr.P.C. nor under Section 438 Cr.P.C. impose any restriction on the filing of anticipatory bail by an absconder. As a rule of thumb, it cannot be said that absconder, against whom a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is not issued, is not entitled to get anticipatory bail.
8. In the present case, admittedly, proceedings under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have not attained finality. Arrest should be the last option and should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arrest of the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of the case. The court must carefully examine entire material available on record and particularly, the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and the allegations should be corroborated by other material and circumstances on record.
9. In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (Supra), Hon'ble Apext Court laid down certain factors and parameters, which are required to be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail. Some of the relevant factors are reproduced for ready reference:-
"(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:03:44 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:23058] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-12675/2022] justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;
(vii) The Courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The Court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the Court should consider with even greater care and caution because overimplication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The Court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."
10. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and especially the fact that as per the FIR itself, the prosecutrix alleged that she was in contact with the petitioner for last two years and had gone to several places with the petitioner so also left her parental home on her own free will, the manner in (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:03:44 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:23058] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-12675/2022] which the allegation of rape has been levelled by her, so also considering the fact that the petitioner has not yet been declared "proclaimed offender" and charge-sheet has been filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C. but without making any comments on the merits/demerits of the case, it is hereby directed that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on or before 03.10.2023 and submits personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each. Upon furnishing the bail bonds, learned trial court is directed to accept the same. Till 03.10.2023, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with FIR No.135/2022 registered at Police Station Soorwal, District Sawaimadhopur.
11. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Sudhir Asopa/16 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:03:44 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)