Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 12154
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Ravi Chirania, J
Manish S/o Prabhulal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8300/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. R.S. Bhati
For the Respondents: Mr. Sameer Pareek, PP, Mr. Dilip Choudhary
The court allows bail, noting the complainant's major status and denial of allegations, affirming the absence of evidence to support charges.
Headnote:This bail application concerns the petitioner's appeal under Section 483 BNSS against a rejection order regarding FIR No.107/2025 involving allegations under provisions of BNS and POCSO Act. The petitioner argues he was falsely implicated, noting that the complainant is above 18 years and declared hostile, thereby necessitating bail. The court highlights the complainant's testimony denying the allegations, finding no merit in the accusations, and allowing bail under specified conditions. The outcome is that the bail application is granted, allowing the petitioner to be released upon fulfilling bond conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the bail application and relevant case background (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the nature of the accusation and false implications (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on complainant's status and testimony (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. decision to grant bail based on findings (Para 8) |
| 5. order of release conditions for the accused (Para 9) |
Order
Order Reserved on : 06.10.2025 Order Pronounced on : 08.10.2025
1. The instant bail application under Section 483 BNS S has been filed by accused-applicant Manish S/o. Prabhulal, aged 19 years, in connection with FIR No.107/2025 registered at P.S. Garhi, District Banswara for the offence under Sections 90(1), 140(3) BNS , 2023 and Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 , against the rejection order dated 03.7.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 , District Banswara in Criminal Misc. Case No.105/2025.
2. The police after conducting investigation has filed charge-
sheet.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the challan papers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and he has not committed any such offence as alleged in impugned FIR registered at the behest of complainant by presenting herself to be minor.Counsel submits that first of all complainant is major girl and is more than 18 years of age, therefore, the allegation of provisions of POCSO Act have been added just to add gravity to the present false case. Counsel further submits that the statement of victim has been recorded by trial court as PW-1 as well as her mother Smt. Neera as PW-2 and both these important and material witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution before the trial court as both the witnesses failed to make any incriminating statement against him, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that the police after conducting investigation submitted charge-sheet against accused-petitioner Manish.
6. This Court has perused contents of FIR and has minutely considered the fact that the victim is not minor as she is above 18 years of age. Her date of birth is 07.3.2007 as per the school record. This Court further noted that the complainant in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS as recorded on 20.3.2025 made serious allegations against the present accused, however, the complainant in her statement as recorded by the trial court on 26.9.2025, as PW-1, specifically stated that the accused- Manish did not rape her and further she was not taken away forcefully by Manish, Yogesh and Lalit. She specifically stated that no such incident happened with her. On account of denial of the complete story of the prosecution she was declared hostile. Further, the mother of complainant i.e. Smt. Neera whose statement has been recorded as PW-2 also denied the fact that the accused-Manish raped her daughter. She specifically stated that no such incident was committed by Manish, Yogesh and Lalit with her daughter.
7. Noticing the fact that the complainant, who is major and more than 18 years of age has herself denied the complete allegations, rather she herself alongwith her mother stated that the accused Manish has not committed any offence with her.
8. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
9. Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Manish S/o. Prabhulal shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.107/2025 registered at P.S. Garhi, District Banswara provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till th
