[2025:RJ-JD:46038]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12449/2025 Hanuman Jat S/o Sukhlal Jat, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Bawdi, Police Station Pander, District Bhilwara Raj. (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Bhilwara)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

2. Gayatri Devi W/o Balmukund Sharma, Resident Of Bawdi, Police Station Pander, District Bhilwara Raj.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikash K Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Singh, PP Mr. Zafar Khan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

17/10/2025

1. The applicant has filed the present bail application being aggrieved against the order dated 27.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, And Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, No.1, Bhilwara, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.206/2025, whereby the bail application filed by the accused-applicant under Section 483 B.N.S.S. was rejected. The accused-applicant is behind the bars, pursuant to the F.I.R. No.102/2025 registered at Police Station Pander, District Bhilwara, against the accused-applicant for offences punishable under Sections 137(2) & 64(1) of BNS, under Section 3/4 of POCSO.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix is a married lady and, as per her statement recorded under Section 180 BNS, she admitted that she was in a love relationship with the accused-applicant. He submits that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is no assertion regarding forceful sexual intercourse. He also submits that the call details clearly indicate that even after the alleged incident, the accused-applicant and the prosecutrix remained in touch. He further submits that the alleged incident is shown to have occurred on 02.07.2025, whereas the FIR was lodged on 18.08.2025, reflecting a gross delay. He further submits that the prosecutrix and her mother appeared before the learned Trial Court, as is evident from the order-sheet dated 20.09.2025, and stated that they had no objection if the accused-applicant is acquitted and do not wish to pursue the matter further. He, therefore, implores this Court to allow the present Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the prosecutrix is only 17 years of age, and therefore, any purported consent would be of no legal consequence.

4.1 Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant supports the accused-applicant and submits that he has no objection if the bail application is allowed. He submits that the prosecutrix and her mother had also appeared before the learned Trial Court and expressed that they have no objection if the accused-applicant is acquitted.

5. Having considered the arguments advanced by both the sides and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the facts that the prosecutrix herself admitted to being in a love relationship with the accused-applicant, that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. there is no averment regarding forceful sexual intercourse, the arguable points concerning the age of the prosecutrix, and that the prosecutrix and her mother appeared before the learned Trial Court expressing no objection if the accused-applicant is acquitted, this Court prima facie finds it a fit case to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

6. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

7. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-applicant; Hanuman Jat S/o Sukhlal Jat, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.102/2025, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.