[2025:RJ-JD:54594]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14272/2025

Viplav S/o Satbeer, Aged About 22 Years, R/o House No 609,

Guru Arjun Nagar, Sector 11, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

(Presently Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted

by Mr. Harshvardhan Singh

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP

Mr. Palash Wadhwani for complainant

through V.C.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

17/12/2025

The instant application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS

(439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in the present matter. The requisite details of the matter

are tabulated herein below:

S. No. Particulars of the case

1. F.I.R. Number 71/2025 2. Police Station Badgaon

3. District Udaipur

4. Offences alleged in the Under Section 64(2)(m) of

F.I.R. BNS

5. Offences in the charge- Under Section 69 of BNS

sheet

Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.

Harshvardhan Singh, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It has

been contended that both petitioner and the prosecutrix being major, were in the same profession and had a purely consensual relationship. It is further submitted that they lived together for about 7-8 months. Drawing attention of this Court towards F.I.R. and the charge-sheet, it has been argued that there is no material available on record to establish that the prosecutrix had entered into a relationship with the petitioner under coercion or undue influence or under the mistaken belief.

It has also been contended that during subsistence of their relationship, both of them established physical relationship as a result of which, the prosecutrix became pregnant. However, due to certain complications, the said pregnancy resulted in a miscarriage.

Learned Senior Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the medical reports of the prosecutrix and telephonic conversations exchanged between them. He has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the police statements of witnesses namely Smt. Drashti Vagela and Shri Harshul Gohel recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. and submitted that as per the statements of both of these witnesses, prosecutrix herself claimed to be the wife of the petitioner and upon examination of her sonography report, it was found that an abortion had occurred and some fetus tissues remained, which were needed to be removed so she was advised certain medicines as she could have suffered excessive bleeding.

It has been argued that the prosecutrix was very well aware of the consequences of her actions and had reasonably considered them before entering in a relationship with the petitioner. As a matter of fact, it is the own case of the prosecutrix that she was in a relationship with the petitioner since last ten months and during this period, she visited various places with him. Thus, the element of inducement for marriage by the petitioner is manifestly absent and the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner tantamount to gross abuse of the process of law.

Learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that prior to registration of present F.I.R., the prosecutrix herself had lodged a complaint against the petitioner by calling Helpline Number 1090 on 03.03.2025 wherein also, similar allegations were made by her against the petitioner. But thereafter, she moved an application in writing before the S.H.O. Police Station Bhupalpura on 13.03.2025 stating that some conciliation proceedings were underway and she did not want to pursue any legal proceedings against the petitioner.

Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that fact of relationship of the petitioner and the prosecutrix was well within the knowledge of the family members of the petitioner and the prosecutrix. Drawing attention of this Court to the statement of the prosecutrix’s father, it has been