HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 670 / 2017
Munna Ram S/o Sh. Nararam,, By Caste Jat, Resident of
Manakpura, Police Station Bhawanda, District Nagaur (Raj.)
(Presently Lodged in District Jail, Nagaur)
State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Vineet Jain.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.AS Rathore, PP
For Complainant : Mr.Narpat Singh.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public
Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. Perused
the case diary.
This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant
under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
being aggrieved of the order dated 3.5.2017 passed by learned
Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act Cases, Merta in
Cr. Case No.209/2017 rejecting the bail application preferred on
behalf of the appellant who is in custody in connection with FIR
No.119/2016, Police Station Bhawanda, District Nagaur, for the
offences under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3(1)(v)(xi) 3(2)(v)
of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Shri Vineet Jain learned counsel for the appellant contends
(2 of 5)
that a totally false case has been foisted against the appellant.
The prosecutrix is a widowed woman aged well above 40 years.
She was in continuous consensual relationship with the appellant
for nearly last five years. It is her admitted case that the appellant
used to provide subsistence for her and her children after the
death of her husband. He further contends that the entire case
has been foisted for wreaking vengeance due to political enmity
because the appellant had been Sarpanch of the village in the
past. He further contends that the complainant married her minor
daughter Sushri L. with a person named Baldeva Ram. The
appellant opposed the said relationship. One Sena Ram who is the
cousin brother of Sushri L. and works with the present appellant,
got the girl free from the clutches of her husband and her father-
in-law who were trying to sell her off. Owing to this, the girl was
pressurised to file a false case against Sena Ram but she did not
accede to the pressure of the complainant but rather, lodged a FIR
No.217/2016 at P.S. Khivsar under Section 376D IPC and various
other offences against Sita Ram, Mahendra and Oma Ram who
have managed registration of instant false and fabricated FIR
against the appellant by instigating the complainant. He further
contends that even if the admitted allegations set out in the FIR
and the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are
accepted as such, then too, clearly it is a case of consensual
relations between the prosecutrix and appellant who are major
persons. He thus, prays that the appellant deserves to be released
Learned PP and learned counsel for the complainant
(3 of 5)
vehemently oppose the submissions advanced by the appellant’s
counsel. They urge that the appellant is an habitual offender and
history sheeter of the police station concerned. A large number of
criminal cases are registered against the appellant and he sexually
exploited the complainant by misusing his criminal background.
The complainant could somehow finally muster courage to lodge
the FIR against the appellant with great deal of persuasion and
help from her family members and thus, the appellant should not
be enlarged on bail.
I have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and
have perused the case diary.
On a perusal of the FIR and statement of the prosecutrix
who is a major widowed woman having five children, it is apparent
that she admitted having continued sexual relations with the
appellant and also candidly stated that the appellant used to
provide subsistence to her and her children. She further alleged
that her minor daughter Sushri L. had established illicit relations
with her own cousin Sena Ram upon which the appellant asked
her to marry the girl and she accepted the said suggestion. She
further stated that after the marriage of her daughter, the
appellant stopped coming to her house.
The Court’s attention was also drawn to the FIR No.217/2016
lodged at P.S. Khinvsar by the complainant’s daughter Sushri L. on
16.1.2016 against Sita Ram, Mahendra and Oma Ram with the
allegations of rape and other offences against these persons. The
girl was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she clearly stated
that Sena Ram was supporting her in opposing her forced
(4 of 5)
marriage and to continue her further studies. In the FIR of the
present case as well as in the statement of the prosecutrix
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has clearly admitted that
the appellant used to provide subsistence for her and her children
after the death of her husband. The relations between the
prosecutrix and the appellant continued for almost four years
without a murmur. Whilst the complainant has alleged that the
appellant instigated her to marry her daughter Sushri L. and that
Sena Ram had subjected Sushri L. to rape, on the contrary the girl
has given out a different story in the FIR No.217/2016 lodged a
day prior to the registration of the present FIR.
So far as the criminal antecedents of the appellant are
concerned, none of the previous cases registered against him
involves the offence of rape. The appellant has been acquitted in
seven out of 17 cases registered against him between the year
1990 till date, In this background, the contention advanced by
Shri Vineet Jain that the relations if any between the prosecutrix
and the appellant were consensual, is not without merit.
Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as
available on record, but without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the prayer for bail made on behalf of the
appellant deserves to be accepted.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated
3.5.2017 is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant
Munna Ram arrested in connection with FIR No.119/2016, Police
Station Bhawanda, District Nagaur, shall be released on bail during
pendency of the trial; provided he furnishes a personal bond of
(5 of 5)
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.