[2025:RJ-JD:54128]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4804/2025

Ravi Singh @ Ammu S/o Shri Nirmal Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o 5 NN, PS Padampur, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan

(At Present Lodged In District Jail, Sriganganagar)

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.

2. Paramjeet Kaur Spouse/o Jalor Singh, R/o 5 NN, PS

Padampur, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushal Gautam

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prem Singh Panwar, PP

Mr. Rajendra Singh Charan, for

complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

16/12/2025

1. This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.364/2024 registered at Police Station Padampur, District Sriganganagar, for offences under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(n), 70(2) and 87 of BNS and Sections 3/4(2), 65(1), 5(g)/6 and 5(l)/

6 of the POCSO Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is aged about 21 years, is in judicial custody since 15.01.2025. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, the challan papers and the statements of victim ‘A’ recorded before the competent Criminal Court as PW-1, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sufficient material is available on record to indicate that the victim ‘A’ ran away with the present petitioner

on her own accord.

3. Learned counsel submitted that while the victim was in company of the present petitioner, she travelled with him to various places such as Bikaner, Jaisalmer, Ramgarh, etc. using public transportation. However, she, despite having ample opportunities, did not disclose the factum of she being forcibly abducted or subjected to sexual assault/rape by the present petitioner, to anyone. It was only when the victim was discovered by the police pursuant to the FIR lodged by her father for the offences under POCSO Act, she has roped the petitioner in a false criminal case.

4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; he 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 petitioner on bail.

5. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in the present case, specific allegations of abduction and subjecting the victim to forcible sexual assault/rape have been levelled against the present petitioner by the victim and therefore, looking to the gravity of the offences allegedly committed by the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, so also the statements of the victim ‘A’ recorded before the competent Criminal Court, this Court is of the opinion that argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim ran away with the present petitioner on her own accord, cannot be brushed aside at this stage. This Court prima facie finds that since the statements of victim ‘A’ have already been recorded before the competent Criminal Court, now there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing her or tampering with evidence. This Court also prima facie finds that learned Public Prosecutor has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner influencing remaining material prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

8. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Ravi Singh @ Ammu S/o Shri Nirmal Singh arrested in connection with