[2025:RJ-JD:54140]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13370/2025

Jitendra S/o Shri Omprakash, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Khariya Neev, Police Station Sojat City, District Pali, Rajasthan.

(Presently Lodged At District Jail, Pali)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramdev Rajpurohit

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP

Mr. Yashwant Roy Gharu for

complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

16/12/2025

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. FIR Number 44/2025

2. Police Station Sojat City

3. District Pali

4. Offences alleged in the Under Section 137(2) of BNS

FIR

5. Offences added, if any Under Sections 64(2)(f)(m),

127(2), 332(b) & 351(2) of BNS

and Sections 3/4(1), 5(L)/6

POCSO Act and Section 84 JJ Act

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this case and the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. It is further submitted that the date

of birth of the prosecutrix ‘K’ is 30.12.2008 and she was aged about 16 years and two months at the time of alleged incident. It is further submitted that initially the prosecutrix has not levelled any allegation against the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS as well as 183 BNSS recorded before the Magistrate. The statement of prosecutrix under Section 183 BNSS was recorded before the Magistrate just two days after the alleged incident. It is further submitted that in the supplementary statement of prosecutrix recorded on 22.05.2025, under Section 180 BNSS as well as application dated 02.06.2025 submitted by the prosecutrix, entire story was changed and the allegation of rape was levelled against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has been examined before the learned trial Court as PW-1 and in her cross-examination she admitted that she informed her mother about the incident but the same was not stated by her mother in her statement. It is contended that since statement of prosecutrix has been recorded as PW-1, there is no chance of tampering the said witness. Learned counsel submitted that the victim has refused to undergo medical examination and further denied that any sexual assault was committed upon her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, petitioner is in judicial custody since 12.08.2025 and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the prosecutrix ‘K’ in her statement recorded as PW-1, has levelled allegations of sexually assualting her against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail as the offence is against a minor girl but they do not refute the fact that in the statement of prosecutrix under Section 180 BNSS and the statementy under Section 183 BNSS recorded just two days after the alleged incident, no allegations were levelled against the petitioner.

The statement prosecutrix ‘K’ recorded under Section 183 BNSS reads as under:-

“'kiFk fnykbZ xbZ%& fnukad 01-03-2025 dks eSa vius ekekth ds ?kj FkhA ekehlk us eq>s MkaV yxkbZ rks eSa viuh cqvk ds ikl gfj;k<+k.kk pyh xbZA eSa fcuk crk;s xbZ Fkh vkSj dqN ckr ugha gSA ”

Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case as well as perused the material available on record, more specifically the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of BNSS and the fact that she has been examined as PW-1 so there is no chance of tampering the said witness, without expres