It definitely comes as no surprise that while ruling on a very significant legal point pertaining to the bail of accused in a rape case, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Shrawan Ram vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. in S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 904/2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:RJ-JD:25915 and also cited in 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 136 that was pronounced as recently as on 25.06.2024 has on expected lines while extending the benefit of doubt granted bail to an accused who was booked under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Amendment Act 2015 (Act) in an alleged case of rape on the ground that no plausible explanation was provided by the prosecutrix for delaying the filing of the FIR by 4-5 years. One cannot help but can only shake one’s head in disbelief that how can in a case of rape one see that no FIR is filed by the prosecutrix not just after few hours of the heinous crime or few days after the heinous crime or few months after the heinous crime but after a huge delay of few years of the heinous crime most strangely without forwarding any plausible explanation to justify such strange conduct! It was the case of the appellant that no allegations of sexual assault/rape were levelled against him by the prosecutrix in the FIR or in the statement given to the police.

It must be mentioned here that the Single Judge Vacation Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Kuldeep Mathur of Rajasthan High Court was hearing an appeal that had been filed by the accused challenging the order of the Special Judge under the Act that had rejected his bail application. It is an undeniable fact as even the Court agreed with the argument put forth by the counsel for the appellant that no explanation was provided by the prosecutrix for the delay in filing the FIR. Furthermore, we also must bear in mind that the Court very rightly took into account the irrefutable fact that more than 980 phone calls were exchanged between the prosecutrix and the appellant on different dates indicating that they were in constant touch. So it thus comes as no wonder that the Rajasthan High Court very rightly allowed the bail application of the accused. Accordingly, we thus see that the appeal of the appellant who is the accused is rightly allowed by the Court thus granting him bail on the fulfillment of certain conditions as stated in this order.

At the very outset, this remarkable, relevant, refreshing, rational and recent judgment authored by the Single Judge Vacation Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Kuldeep Mathur of Rajasthan High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para that:
Heard learned counsel representing the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

As we see, the Single Judge Vacation Bench then lays bare in the next para of this brief judgment that:
This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 being aggrieved by the order dated 23.05.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Merta in Cr. Misc. Case No.86/2024 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant who is in custody in connection with FIR No.23/2024, Police Station Panchodi, District Nagaur, 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.

To put things in perspective, the Single Judge Vacation Bench then envisages in the next para of this brilliant judgment that:
Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the FIR prosecutrix has not levelled any allegation of sexual assault/rape against the present appellant. Learned counsel submitted that even in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix did not level any allegation of sexual assault against the present appellant. However, only with a view to rope the appellant in a false criminal case of Section 376 IPC, the allegation has been levelled against the appellant of sexual assault by the prosecutirx in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further submitted that in the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that she was subjected to sexual assault by the present appellant about 4-5 years prior to the date of lodging the FIR.

As it turned out, the Single Judge Vacation Bench then further lays bare in the next para of this balanced judgment that:
Learned counsel further submitted that no plausible explanation for delay in lodging of the present FIR has been given by the prosecutrix. Learned counsel further submitted that as per prosecutrix, she was subjected to sexual assault by the appellant and he threatened her of making her obscene videos and photographs viral. However, no such photographs and videos have been recovered by the Investigating Agency from the appellant.

What’s more, we see that not stopping here the Single Judge Vacation Bench then furthermore also points out in the next para of this commendable judgment that, Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in custody and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the appellant on bail.

On the other hand, we then see that the Single Judge Vacation Bench also observes in the next para of this cogent judgment that:
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Needless to say, the Single Judge Vacation Bench then seeks to specify in the next para of this creditworthy judgment that:
This Court vide order dated 18.06.2024 directed the learned Public Prosecutor to call the case diary. In compliance of order dated 18.06.2024 passed by this Court, learned Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary.

Most significantly and most forthrightly, the Single Judge Vacation Bench then mandates in the next para of this progressive judgment postulating that:
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the statements of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., this Court prima facie finds that 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. 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. This Court also prima facie finds that the appellant and prosecutrix were in constant touch through mobile phone and more than 980 calls were exchanged between them on different dates. This Court also prima facie finds that no obscene videos and photographs have been allegedly used by the appellant for pressurizing the prosecutrix. The prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the appellant influencing the prosecutrix or fleeing from justice in case he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

Finally, we thus see that the Single Judge Vacation Bench then concludes by holding and directing in the final para of this noteworthy judgment that, Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 23.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Merta is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Shrawan Ram S/o Megha Ram arrested in connection with FIR No.23/2024, Police Station Panchodi, District Nagaur shall be released on bail during pendency of the trial; provided he furnishes personal bond of 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.

All said and done, it is definitely high time and now our amended penal laws which are to come into effect from 01.07.2024 must be also suitably amended to meet the present circumstances so that no woman ever dares to lodge false rape cases against a men with impunity. If any woman ever dares to lodge false rape cases against men then she cannot be allowed to roam free as we see most unfortunately till date rather must be made to mandatorily face jail term of at least 7 years if not ten years! In addition, if a woman ever lodges false rape cases against men then she must be also made to pay huge monetary compensation to the men who had been falsely charged with rape case!

Not only this, in addition our law makers must ensure that a definite time limit must be set for lodging rape cases. If a woman keeps quiet for several years then she has no unfettered right to wake up after several years as we see in this leading case and accuse a men of rape charges all of a sudden thus taking the whole world by surprise! It thus merits no reiteration that this unabashed open mockery of men by many such women who lodges false rape cases after many years of the incident must be immediately brought to an end by amending the penal laws in this regard and inserting a fixed time limit of lodging rape cases against the accused! There can be just no gainsaying that this certainly merits prompt course correction right now and there should be no more dilly-dallying by our law makers in this regard as much water has already flown under the bridge! There can be just no denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh