No Plausible Explanation For Lodging FIR After Huge Delay Of 4-5 Years: Rajasthan HC Grants Bail In Rape Case
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to the rape case accused while observing that no plausible explanation was furnished by the prosecutrix for lodging the FIR after a huge delay of 4-5 years.
The Court was hearing an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 after the appellant was aggrieved by the order that rejected the bail application of the appellant who is in custody for the offences under Sections 354D, 506 & 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(w)(2), 3(2)(V) & 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act.
The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed, “This Court also prima facie finds that no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecutrix for lodging the FIR after a huge delay of 4-5 years.”
Advocate Prem Sukh Choudhary appeared for the Appellant and PP B.R. Bishnoi appeared for the Respondent.
The Appellant Shrawan Ram argued that the FIR does not allege sexual assault or rape by him and the prosecutrix only made such allegations under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to falsely implicate him. It is said that no explanation was given as to why an FIR was lodged after 4-5 years of occurrence of the alleged incident. Additionally, no obscene videos or photographs, which the appellant allegedly used to threaten the prosecutrix, were found. The counsel also submitted that the appellant has been in custody and that the trial will likely take a long time, requesting the Court to grant bail.
The Court prima facie found that the prosecutrix, in her statements, stated that she was subjected to forcible sexual assault/rape about 4-5 years from the date of lodging the FIR however, according to the Court no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecutrix for lodging the FIR after a huge delay of 4-5 years.
The Court also prima facie found that the appellant and prosecutrix were in constant touch through mobile phone and more than 980 calls were exchanged between them on different dates.
The Court further found that the prima facie no obscene videos or photographs were allegedly used by the appellant to pressure the prosecutrix. Additionally, as per the Court, the prosecution has not demonstrated any risk of the appellant influencing the prosecutrix or fleeing from justice if granted bail.
Thus, the Court allowed the bail application of the appellant without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case.
Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Shrawan Ram v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:25915)