[2025:RJ-JD:54592]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8761/2025

Sharwan Nath S/o Arjun Nath, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Sutharon Ka Guda, Police Thana Sadari, District Pali (Raj.) Presently Residing At Samal, Police Thana Sayra, District

Udaipur. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail Udaipur)

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Amarpal Yadav S/o Kumargi Lal Yadav, Sajjan Nagar

Kacchi Basti Ps Ambamata Dist. Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JVS Deora

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

17/12/2025

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner u/S 483 B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No. 191/2025 registered at Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur for offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 144(1), 65(1) of BNS. and Section 4, 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

2. Heard.

3. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the age of the victim has been shown as 16 years but she is more than 18 years of age. He also submits that the marriage of the

victim was solemnized with the present petitioner by showing her age to be more than 18 years.

5. He also submits that during her cross-examination, the victim herself has stated that she has not disclosed her age to Sharwan Das, the present petitioner, at the time of marriage. He submits that though the marriage of the victim was solemnized with the accused petitioner, however, because of some dispute over money, the present criminal case has been lodged against the petitioner with false and fabricated facts.

6. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the accused- petitioner is in custody since 10.06.2025. He also submits that the victim has already been examined before the learned trial Court and her evidence clearly shows that she was married to the accused-petitioner.

7. He also submits that the mother of the victim, in her statements recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., has admitted the fact of marriage of the victim with the accused-petitioner.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

9. The certified copy of the statements of the victim was produced by counsel for the petitioner, which is taken on record and perused.

10. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and so also the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and more particularly, the fact that there is evidence on record that the marriage of the victim was solemnized with the accused petitioner, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. Therefore, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

11. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided that he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only), together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

28-neha/-