- (1.) The petitioner, accused of offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, has moved this second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The first application for bail (No. 5916/2009) was rejected by this Court on 12.11.2009 as not pressed at the given stage with the following order: Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall stand advised not to press on this bail application at this stage but to take recourse to the appropriate remedy at the later stage; and with these submissions, does not press on this bail application at this stage. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the petitioner Ranjeet Das S/o Maheshwar Das is dismissed as not pressed at this stage.
(2.) The petitioner, thereafter, moved another application for bail before the learned Trial Court that came to be rejected on 22.01.2010 with the observations that the charges had been framed for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and the matter was fixed on short dates for evidence with the next date being 09.02.2010. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence was not recorded on 09.02.2010 for the Presiding Officer being on leave; and now, the matter is fixed in the Trial Court on 11.03.2010.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued on the bail plea of the petitioner at length practically taking the Court through the entire of the challan papers and contended that the prosecutrix has not alleged any forcible sexual assault on her person; and that the age of the prosecutrix has been estimated at 16-17 years in the medical report. The learned Counsel has referred to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted that consciously the legislature has provided the age of 16 years as the age for the purpose of consent and in the given circumstances, a clear case of consent is made out in favour of the petitioner. The learned Counsel has also referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. State of Rajasthan,1999 CrLR 437. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 14.07.2009 and the trial being unnecessarily prolonged, the petitioner deserves not to be detained further.;