[2025:RJ-JP:51217]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11120/2025

Sandesh Kumar S/o Narendra Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o

Kolana, P.s Nohjheel, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.

(At Present Confined In District Jail, Deeg).

----Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mritunjya Sharma

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sudesh Saini, Addl. Govt. Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order

18/12/2025

1. The instant bail application has been filed by the applicant Sandesh Kumar S/o Narendra Singh, aged about 28 Years, arrested by the police on 28.07.2025 in connection with the FIR bearing No.277/2025 dated 04.05.2025, registered at Police Station Kumher, District Deeg, in respect of an incident dated 01.04.2025 for the offences under Sections 74, 77, 78(2), 351(2), 351(3) of B.N.S. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kumher, District Deeg vide order dated 14.08.2025, thereafter, the applicant has

preferred this bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially there was no allegation levelled against the applicant regarding the of- fence under Section 64(1) of the B.N.S., however, charge-sheet came to be filed against him on a new version of the story nar-

rated by the complainant, and an additional charge for the offence under Section 64(1) B.N.S. was added by the police. Learned counsel further submits that both, the applicant and the pros- ecutrix, are major, known and in continuous touch with each other telephonically. Learned counsel further submits that the accused- applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case for the offences under Sections 74, 77, 78(2), 351(2), 351(3) of B.N.S, as alleged in the FIR as well as in the charge-sheet. In view of the above fact, he submits that allegations levelled in the FIR do not prove any offence against him and prayed that he may be en-

larged on bail.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application and submits that the accused-applicant may not be enlarged on bail.

4. This Court after considering contents of the FIR lodged by brother of the prosecutrix finds that the FIR is with a delay of more than one month. The statements of the prosecutrix were recorded under Section 183 B.N.S. on 17.05.2025, however, her statements under Section 180 B.N.S.S. were recorded on 15.07.2025. The severe delay in recording such statements and the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer prima- facie suggests that the allegations levelled against the accused- applicant are not true. This Court further notes that the FIR dated 04.05.2025 was lodged after a delay of about one month after the occuerence of the alleged incident and therefore, due to absence of any medical evidence (due to delay) to support the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix, the offence against the accused appli-

cant cannot be proved.

5. This Court also noted that, after going through the charge- sheet, there is no recovery of any chats and photographs from the mobile phone of the accused-applicant.

6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, this Court is inclined to exercise its power under Section 483 B.N.S.S. and deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is directed that accused-applicant - Sandesh Kumar S/o Narendra Singh shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. The applicant is fur- ther directed not to take undue advantage of liber