Supreme Court: In a challenge under Article 136 of Constitution of India against judgment and order passed by the Rajasthan High Court on 12-07-2023 dismissing second bail application of the petitioner for offences under Sections 376, 506 and 450 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. allowed bail for the petitioner considering his age and period of incarceration.
It was alleged that there were various fallacies and inconsistencies in statements given by the prosecutrix, and that the medical records did not reflect offence of rape in the absence of any injury, swelling or forced sexual assault. Further, it was alleged that the petitioner committed rape upon her at midnight and stayed with her for 3-4 hours, while there was no eyewitness despite the place being situated in a populated colony, and the First Information Report (‘FIR’) was also registered after 7 days of incident.
Considering the period of incarceration of a 25-year-old man for more than 16 months and the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the Court allowed bail to the petitioner. While stating about release on bail, the Court left it up to the Trial Court to impose terms and conditions to its satisfaction and also required for necessary cooperation by the petitioner during the Trial. In case the petitioner attempted to delay the trial, the Court kept it open for the State of Rajasthan to file an application for recall of the instant order.
[Rahul Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 791 of 2024, Order dated 21-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate on Record Namit Saxena
For Respondent: Advocate Preeti Thanvi, Advocate on Record Anand Shankar, Advocate Chakshu Purohit, Advocate Parul Malik
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
