[2025:RJ-JD:54645]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2564/2025

Sandeep Urf Sethi S/o Ramkumar, Aged About 27 Years, 24 A.s.c Bhagatsinghnagar Nai Mandi Gharsana P.s. Gharsana Sriganganagar ( Presently Lodged In Central Jail Sriganganagar)

----Appellant

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

2. Ankita Kumari D/o Prem Sagar, Aged About 25 Years,

Premnagar Ward No.6 Anoopgarh, Ganganagar, Rajasthan

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, PP

Mr. Abhishek Agarwal, for

complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

17/12/2025

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.302/2025 registered at Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, for the offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 323, 354, 509 and 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 483 BNSS filed on behalf of the appellant

was rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegation against the appellant pertains to the committing rape on the basis of a false promise of marriage. It was argued that the appellant and the prosecutrix were preparing for competitive examination and, during the course of such preparation, they developed friendship, which gradually turned into a love affair and eventually culminated into a physical relationship. It was contended that, on the date of the alleged incident, the prosecutrix had attained majority. The allegation regarding the appellant capturing obscene videos and photographs of the prosecutrix is completely false and totally baseless. It was further submitted that the appellant has not been charge-sheeted for offences under the Information Technology Act and that he does not have any criminal antecedents. The investigation against the appellant has already been concluded; he is presently in judicial custody and the trial of the case is likely to take a sufficiently long time to conclude. Therefore, learned counsel prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-appellant.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances available on record and upon consideration of the arguments advanced at the Bar, particularly keeping in view that both the appellant and the prosecutrix are majors and were admittedly in a relationship, the possibility of their developing a consensual physical relationship, cannot be ruled out at this stage. Further, the appellant has not been charge-sheeted under the Information Technology Act and does not have any criminal antecedents. In view thereof, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the order rejecting the bail application filed on behalf of the appellant cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar is set aside. It is ordered that the accused- appellant Sandeep Urf Sethi S/o Ramkumar arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.302/2025 registered at Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

It is however, made clear that find