[2025:RJ-JD:54584]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 2748/2025

Murlidhar S/o Shaitan Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Anewa, PS Khinwada, District Pali. (At present lodged in District Jail Pali)

----Appellant

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP.

2. Sushri Ranjan S/o Pura Ram, Aged About 19 Years, R/o

Anewa, Police Station Khinwada, District Pali.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Jaitawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Choudhary, PP

Ms. Pinki Goswami on behalf of

Ms. Sobha Prabhakar for complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

17/12/2025

1. The instant appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pali in Cr. Misc. (Bail) Case No.1061/2025, whereby the bail application filed by the appellant, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.134/2025 registered at Police Station Khinwara, District Pali, for offences under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS; and Section 3(2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per prosecution, the appellant, who was having an old acquaintance with the prosecutrix, called her on his birthday and thereafter, making her consume a cold-drink containing intoxicating substance, he committed forcible sexual assault/rape upon her and also captured her obscene photographs. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations levelled against the present appellant are absolutely false and baseless.

3. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the appellant was having an affair with the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix is a major girl, who voluntarily entered into physical relationship with the present appellant and went away with him from Village Desuri to Sojat and thereafter, travelled with the appellant to various other places such as Udaipur, Mawli, Kapasan, Jaipur, etc. Learned counsel further submitted that at the first instance when the prosecutrix was discovered by the police pursuant to the missing person report lodged by her family members, she in her initial statements has stated that she went away with the present appellant out of her own free will and volition. However, it appears that later on, under the pressure of her family members or for the reasons best known to her, she has roped the appellant in a false criminal case.

4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody; the investigation against the appellant has already been concluded; the appellant does not have any criminal antecedents and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the appellant on bail.

5. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present appellant and the statements of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS wherein she has levelled specific allegation of she being subjected to forcible sexual assault/rape by the appellant, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and having perused the case diary and the statements of victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecutrix voluntarily went away with the appellant and was in consensual relationship with the him, cannot be brushed aside at this stage. This Court also prima facie finds that the learned Public Prosecutor has not shown an