[2025:RJ-JD:54477]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2309/2025

Babu Lal S/o Uma Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gigasar, P.s. Deshnok, Bikaner (Raj) (In Judicial Custody At Central Jail,

Bikaner.)

----Appellant

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

2. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Mangi Lal, R/o Gigasar, P.S.

Deshnok, Bikaner (Raj)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ratana Ram

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Choudhary, PP

Mr. K.L. Chouhan

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

17/12/2025

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.62/2025, registered at Police Station Deshnok, District Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 331(6), 351(3) of BNS; and Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases and learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bikaner whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) on

behalf of the appellant was rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecutrix, who is a mature married woman, has falsely implicated the petitioner in the present criminal case. It was contended that the prosecutrix submitted a written complaint before the SHO of police station Deshnok alleging inter alia that about three months prior to the date of lodging of the FIR, one Suva Maharaj @ Bhomaram entered her house and, taking advantage of her solitude, committed forcible sexual assault- rape upon her at knife-point. It was further alleged that the said Suva Maharaj @ Bhomaram captured obscene videos and photographs of the prosecutrix and thereafter, by threatening to circulate the same on social media platforms, blackmailed her.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that, so far as the appellant is concerned, the allegation against him is that he procured those obscene videos and photographs from Suva Maharaj @ Bhomaram and thereafter, by threatening and blackmailing the prosecutrix with their circulation, committed forcible sexual assault- rape upon her on multiple occasions. It was submitted that the investigation in the matter has already been completed and, after conducting a thorough investigation, the police has filed the charge-sheet against the appellant before the competent criminal court.

5. Drawing the attention of the Court to the charge-sheet, learned counsel submitted that although the prosecutrix, in her written complaint, has levelled specific allegations against Suva Maharaj @ Bhomaram, the investigating agency has not arraigned him as an accused. In other words, the charge-sheet has been filed only against the appellant. Learned counsel contended that the material available on record prima facie indicates that the prosecutrix was in a consensual physical relationship with the appellant and when their relationship turning strained, the appellant has falsely been roped in a criminal case. It was also pointed out that no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecutrix for the delay of about three months in lodging the FIR.

6. Lastly learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody; the investigation against him has already concluded; he has no criminal antecedents; and the trial is likely to take a considerable time to be concluded. On these grounds, it was prayed that the appellant be enlarged on bail.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as borne out from the record, and upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced at the Bar, this Court finds that although specific allegati