[2026:RJ-JD:2316]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15165/2025 Dala Ram Urf Dama Ram S/o Indra Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Katarla, Police Station Dhorimanna, District Barmer, Rajasthan (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail Balotra)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chakravarti Singh Rathore 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.108/2025 registered at Police Station Chohtan, District Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 137(2), 96, ,127(3), 64(2)(m), 70(2), 61(2) and 78 of BNS and Sections 5(g)(l)/6 and

11(iv)/12 and 16/17 of POCSO Act.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing the attention of the Court to the FIR and the challan papers, learned counsel contended that the material available on record clearly indicates that the victim was in a consensual love relationship with the petitioner. It was further submitted that on the date of the alleged incident, the victim voluntarily accompanied the petitioner of her own free will and subsequently solemnized marriage with him in accordance with the rites and rituals of Arya Samaj.

Learned counsel further submitted that the victim not only solemnized marriage with the petitioner but also filed S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1658/2025 before this Court, claiming herself to be a major. It was argued that since the victim had solemnized marriage with the petitioner against the wishes of her family members, she thereafter apprehended threat to her life and liberty at their hands.

This Court, vide order dated 06.06.2025, directed the victim and the petitioner to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, and further directed the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, to ensure that the petitioner and the victim were not illegally restrained from enjoying their peaceful married life.

Learned counsel submitted that it was only during the subsequent proceedings conducted by the police that the age of the victim was found to be below 18 years, whereupon she was handed over to her family members by the investigating agency. It was contended that thereafter, due to pressure exerted by her family members or for other extraneous reasons, the victim has falsely implicated the petitioner in the present criminal case.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is presently in judicial custody; the investigation against him has already been completed; and the trial is likely to take a considerable time. On these grounds, it was prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application.

Having considered the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the victim, in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, alleged that she was forcibly abducted by the petitioner along with other co-accused persons. She further alleged that she was subjected to forcible sexual assault/rape on multiple occasions by the petitioner, who allegedly threatened to make her obscene videos and photographs viral on social media platforms. However, no such obscene videos or photographs have been recovered by the investigating agency, nor has any charge-sheet been filed against the petitioner under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

This Court also prima facie finds that while the victim was in the company of the petitioner, she travelled with him to various places and stayed in hotels located in thickly populated areas. Despite having ample opportunity, she