[2026:RJ-JD:2303]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14191/2025 Babu Khan Alias Tinu S/o Shri Ldadu Khan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 38, Prem Nagar, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh. (Presently Lodged At District Jail, Hanumangarh)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saddam Hussain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Ram Prajapati, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

15/01/2026 This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.203/2025 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana (Hanumangarh), District Hanumangarh, for the offences under Sections 332(b), 64(2)(m) and 351(3) of BNS.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecutrix, who is a mature married woman, has falsely implicated the petitioner in the present criminal case. Drawing the attention of this Court towards the FIR and the challan papers, learned counsel contended that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were neighbours and had developed mutual liking for each other, pursuant to which the prosecutrix entered into a consensual relationship with the petitioner.

It was further argued that although the FIR alleges that in the month of July, 2025, when the prosecutrix was alone at her house, the petitioner committed forcible sexual assault upon her at knife-point and captured obscene photographs and videos, no such photographs or videos have been recovered by the investigating agency. In fact, the challan has not even been filed against the petitioner for any offence under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Learned counsel further submitted that the material available on record clearly indicates that the prosecutrix, of her own volition, left her house and travelled with the petitioner with the intention of living with him in a live-in relationship. However, when their relationship later became strained, the prosecutrix falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 24.10.2025; the investigation has already been concluded; and the trial is likely to take a considerable period of time. Therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the prosecutrix, in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, has categorically stated that she was subjected to forcible sexual assault by the petitioner on multiple occasions on the pretext of threatening to make her obscene photographs and videos viral on social media platforms. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, it was contended that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.

Having considered the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of more than two months from the date on which the prosecutrix was allegedly subjected to forcible sexual assault for the first time. Further, no obscene photographs or videos allegedly used for blackmailing the prosecutrix have been recovered during investigation. At this stage, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecutrix, being a mature married woman, developed a consensual relationship with the petitioner and voluntarily travelled with him to various places cannot be brushed aside.

This Court also notes that the petitioner is in judicial custody; he has no criminal antecedents; the investigation stands concluded; and the learned Public Prosecutor has not expressed any specific apprehension regarding the petitioner influencing prosecution witnesses or absconding, if released on bail.

Accordingl