1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5091/2009 Charan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 10.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodia, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Upman, for the complainant. Mr. Amit Poonia, Public Prosecutor. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodia Advocate on behalf of the applicant Charan Singh @ Chunu @ Sagar pertaining to F.I.R. No. 24/2009 registered at Mahila Thana Bharatpur, District Bharatpur in the offence under Section 376 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The occurrence of rape is alleged to have been take place five years back. Thereafter, it is alleged that she was subjected to rape again and again by the petitioner but she reported the matter in the police after an inordinate delay which reflects that story of rape has been concocted by the prosecutrix. The petitioner has been in custody and the case is pending investigation, which is likely to take time, as such, he may be granted indulgence of bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for State as also learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail petition on 2 the ground that in the beginning prosecutrix was ravished by the petitioner on pistol point. Her photographs in obscene or objectionable state were managed to have been taken and under the threat to make public these photographs, she was sexually exploited and subjected to rape by the petitioner again and again. Learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that these photographs were handed over to her husband, as a result of which her husband divorced her. Under these circumstances, the petitioner should not be granted indulgence of bail. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material on record, I without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, do not deem it just and proper to grant any bail to the petitioner which deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner Charan Singh @ Chunu @ Sagar stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Mak/- 36