HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 1217 / 2018
Sahiram S/o Shri Lekhram, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Vishnoi, R/o
Vishnoiyon Ka Bass, Alai, Police Station Sribalaji, Tehsil and
District Nagaur (Raj.)
—-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, P.P.
Mr. Nishant Bora
Mr. Ashok Bibhu, S.I., Police Station Sri
Balaji, District Nagaur
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
26/02/2018
Heard.
The instant bail application under Section 438 CrPC has
been moved by petitioner accused Sahiram apprehending arrest in
connection with FIR No.111/2016 registered at Police Station Sri
Balaji. The FIR came to be lodged by the complainant Sushri ‘S’,
wife of Subhash Bishnoi at the Police Station Sri Balaji on
08.08.2016. The lady alleged in the FIR that she was married to
Subhash Bishnoi in her childhood. For the last four years, she has
been living at her matrimonial home. Her husband was working in
RAC. She used to live at her matrimonial home with her father-
in-law and mother-in-law. Her mother-in-law recently passed
away about 20-25 days before lodging of the FIR. She alleged
(2 of 5)
[CRLMB-1217/2018]
that her husband was not maintaining any kind of relations with
her for last one and half years. About a year ago, she had gone to
the ‘bada’ for attending the nature’s call and spotting her alone,
accused Kailash took advantage and subjected her to rape. He
also snapped her indecent photographs and threatened that if the
incident was disclosed to anybody, the photographs would be
made viral. Three months later, while her mother-in-law had gone
to her paternal home; her father-in-law had gone to attend a
marriage and her husband was at Jodhpur, taking advantage of
this situation, the present petitioner and Subhash, who works in
Police, came there and showed her the photographs snapped by
Kailash. She was also threatened on gunpoint and the present
petitioner as well as Subhash subjected her to rape one after the
other. They also snapped pictures of each other having sexual
relations with the lady and then threatened her and went away.
Thereafter, Kailash, Sahi Ram and Subhash often subjected her to
rape. In the month of January, just after she had completed her
periods, Sahiram subjected her to rape, on which she conceived.
After two months she told this fact to her sister Kavita, who was
married to her Jeth Rajaram. Kavita warned her that in case she
discussed with anybody about the incident, she might be turned
out of the matrimonial home. When she became seven months
pregnant, she somehow mustered courage to tell her husband of
the incident, upon which, the FIR came to be lodged.
Initially, the FIR was registered against Sahiram,
Kailash and Subhash. However, after conducting thorough
Investigation, the Investigating Officer has reached to a cetegoric
(3 of 5)
[CRLMB-1217/2018]
finding that accused Subhash and Kailash had been falsely
implicated in this case. The DNA report of the foetus carried by
the prosecutrix has matched with the petitioner’s DNA.
Apprehending arrest in connection with the above FIR, the
petitioner approached the Court of Sessions Judge, Nagaur for
grant of pre-arrest bail by filing an aplication under Section 438
CrPC, which came to be rejected on 18.01.2018 and hence, this
pre-arrest bail application.
Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel representing the petitioner,
urges that even if the case set up in the belated FIR lodged by the
complainant prosecutrix is accepted to be true on the face of
record, manifestly, the relations between her and the petitioner
were consensual. She concealed the fact of the alleged sexual
assault from the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. Even
when she shared this information with her sister Kavita just two
months after the incident, she was advised not to disclose it so as
to avoid the consequence of being turned out from the
matrimonial home. He urges that these circumstances give clear
indication that the prosecutrix was having an extramarital affair
with the present petitioner and tried to delay the disclosure
thereof as long as possible. However, when finally her pregnancy
started to reflect in appearance, she was left with no option, but
to tell her husband about the relationship and then the entirely
concocted story was designed so as to somehow or the other, save
the family from ignominy. He, thus, urges that the petitioner
deserves to be granted bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Nishant
(4 of 5)
[CRLMB-1217/2018]
Bora, learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently
opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel.
Nevertheless, learned Public Prosecutor candidly
conceded that the Investigating Officer has not found the accused
Kailash, who is alleged to have made first assault on the
complainant, and Subhash involved in the case. It is undisputed
that when the complainant shared the information with her sister,
who was also married in the same family, she was advised to keep
her mouth shut, because the disclosure would put her matrimonial
ties in danger. Admittedly, the complainant’s husband was not
having any kind of physical relations with her. Pregnancy of the
complainant was bound to show after four to five months and
thus, silence of the complainant in reporting the matter is clearly
indicative of a story entirely different from what has been
portrayed in the FIR. These facts clearly indicate that the
prosecutrix was in some kind of consensual relationship with the
petitioner, which she was trying to conceal from her family
members.
In this background and having regard to the entirety of
facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a
consideration of the arguments advanced at the Bar, this Court is
of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the
petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is
directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Sahiram S/o shri
Lekhram in connection with F.I.R. No.111/2016 registered at
Police Station Sri Balaji, District Nagaur, the petitioner shall be
(5 of 5)
[CRLMB-1217/2018]
released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the
following conditions :-
(i) that the petitioner(s) shall make himself/herself/themselves
available for interrogation by a police officer as and when
required;
(ii) that the petitioner(s) shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the court or any police officer; and
(iii) that the petitioner(s) shall not leave India without previous
permission of the court.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
Pramod