[2025:RJ-JD:46258]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10900/2025 Sanjeep Kumar S/o Bindeswari Paswan, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No. 8 Bhelwa Police Station Gamhariya District Madhepura Bihar. (Presently Lodged At Dist Jail Hanumangarh)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Arvind S/o Nawab Singh, R/o Ward No. 31 Prem Nagar Hanumangarh Town District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Motsara For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order

27/10/2025

1. The petitioner - Sanjeep Kumar S/o Bindeswari Paswan, aged about 22 Years has been arrested in connection with FIR No.724/2024 of Police Station – Hanumangarh Town, District – Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(M) of B.N.S and Section 5(1)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The petitioner’s bail application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20.08.2025, thereafter, the petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were known to each other and therefore, with mutual consent, they went to different places and stayed there. He submitted that the petitioner has not committed such offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. He further submitted that the incident is dated 16.10.2024 whereas the prosecutrix was recovered on 28.10.2024 and therefore her medical examination was also conducted. Learned counsel submits that there is a serious dispute regarding the age of the prosecutrix. He submitted that the prosecution, to support the age of the prosecutrix, filed a school document dated 07.07.2011, according to which the prosecutrix was admitted in Class-I in 2011. The date of birth as mentioned in the school form is 05.04.2008, according to which the prosecutrix was just three years and two months old at the time of admission in Class-I in a government school. He submitted that in government schools, admission are not made for children below five and a half years of age. Therefore, this document is seriously doubtful. He submitted that the school principal, namely, Kuldeep Kaur whose statement was recorded by the learned trial Court as PW-1 on 11.08.2025, failed to support the school document dated 07.07.2011, according to which the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 05.04.2008. He submitted that as the Principal herself has failed to support the age of the prosecutrix on the basis of the school document and therefore the allegation as levelled against him under the POCSO Act are false and baseless. He further submitted that even the attire and other things as noted at the time of recovery of the prosecutrix shows that she was living with the petitioner with her consent and no such offence was committed by him. He further submitted that the charge- sheet has been filed and the statements of material witnesses have been recorded. The accused-petitioner is in custody from 19.03.2025 and the trial of the case will take long time. In view thereof, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail majorly on the ground that, according to him, the prosecutrix is above 18 years of age and further, in the medical report, no injury was reported by the doctor who examined the prosecutrix.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly objected to the bail application and submitted that the age of the prosecutrix is 16 years that the conduct of the petitioner, who is 22 years of age, is serious. He further submitted that the prosecutrix, in her statement as recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S. on 30.10.2024, stated that she was 16 years old and whatever she has stated in her 183 BNS statement as well as in her Court Statement is sufficient enough to prove that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence as stated by the her in the impugned FIR, therefore, he may not be granted bail.

4. Heard learned