The court emphasized that substantial delays in reporting allegations, lack of corroborative evidence, and the principle against pre-conviction punishment collectively justify the granting of bail.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

IA No. 01/2025

1. The present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking modification of the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10736/2025. On perusal of the record, it is revealed that the application has been moved under a misconception of fact, as the statement of the victim had already been duly recorded by the learned Trial Court on 27.09.2024.

2. In view of the aforesaid, the application, having been filed on an erroneous premise that the victim’s statement was yet to be recorded, is misconceived and accordingly stands disposed of.

3. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4^th Bail Application No. 10736/2025

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

4. Brief Summary of Case Facts

The First Information Report (FIR) was filed by Suganaram concerning an incident involving his minor daughter, Sushila (age 13 at the time). The FIR alleges that on 04.02.2018, at 10 AM, the applicant (accused) called Sushila to his maternal uncle Laxmanram's stub well, where he allegedly sexually assaulted her inside a room, throwing her on a bed, opening her salwar, and forcibly inflicting himself upon the victim despite her attempts to free herself. The FIR further alleges that the applicant threatened the minor with a knife, snatched her mobile, took semi-nude photographs of her, and transferred the photos to his own mobile. He then allegedly threatened Sushila that he would make the photographs viral, kill her brother, and ruin her family's image if she disclosed the incident. Due to this fear, Sushila allegedly remained silent, and the applicant reportedly continued to sexually exploit her by threatening to make the photos viral. After Sushila became an adult and was engaged to Dalaram on 22.06.2023, the accused, identified as Mishrilal, allegedly became angry and created fake Instagram IDs (Sushila Machra-99 paid girl and Mamta Pet 87) from which he made obscene photos viral and posted wrong messages about the complainant's daughter. Upon questioning, Sushila allegedly told her mother, Tulchha, the entire story on 08.07.2023, explaining that she had kept silent due to the applicant's prior threat. Based on this written report, the case was registered under various sections including Section 384 , 376(2)(n)(3), 506, 288A of the IPC , Section 5 (L)(N)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 66C, 66D, 66E of the I.T. Act. The applicant subsequently preferred a bail application before the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases 2012, Nagaur, which was dismissed by an order dated 02.07.2025. The current matter is the instant bail application filed by the Applicant before this Court, being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the aforementioned dismissal order.

5. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an