Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused facing rape and POCSO charges, taking into account the alleged six-year relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix, the circumstances surrounding registration of the FIR and the prolonged incarceration of the accused.
Justice Farjand Ali passed the order while considering the accused’s fifth bail application in connection with an FIR registered at Shergarh Police Station, Jodhpur, alleging offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 384 and 312 of the IPC and Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act.
According to the case placed before the Court, the prosecutrix had been in a relationship with the accused for nearly six years. During the relationship, she allegedly conceived once or twice, with the pregnancies stated to have been terminated through medication. She subsequently married another man, after which the accused claimed that she was persuaded or coerced by members of her parental or matrimonial family into lodging the FIR.
The accused argued that the allegations did not make out the offences alleged against him and that his continued incarceration was no longer justified.
Relationship Prima Facie Appears Voluntary and Consensual
While considering the bail plea, the High Court took note of the long-standing relationship between the parties and the circumstances emerging from the record.
The Court observed that, at the stage of bail, the relationship prima facie “cannot be viewed, at this stage, as anything other than a voluntary and consensual relationship.”
The Bench also considered the defence’s contention that after the prosecutrix married another person, she was allegedly persuaded or coerced by her parental or matrimonial family to lodge the FIR. Significantly, the Court noted that during cross-examination, the prosecutrix’s mother was stated to have admitted that the complaint was lodged at the instance of her counsel.
The Court clarified that the ultimate evidentiary value of the statement would have to be assessed by the trial court. However, for the limited purpose of deciding the bail application, the statement provided some support to the defence version and could not be completely ignored.
Three Years in Custody, Only Seven Witnesses Examined
The Court also attached significant weight to the prolonged incarceration of the accused.
The accused had remained in custody for approximately three years, while only seven out of around 20 prosecution witnesses had been examined.
Describing the progress of the trial as proceeding at a “snail pace,” the Court observed that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude.
The Bench held that keeping the accused incarcerated for an extended period when there was no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial would not serve any fruitful purpose.
The Court accordingly allowed the fifth bail application and directed the release of the accused on bail, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.