[2026:RJ-JD:2928]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15428/2025 Sunil Kumar S/o Kishanlal, Aged About 23 Years, Village Bansaur Teshil Sriyari District Pali Raj. (Lodged In Sub Dist. Jail Pali)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Ankita D/o Ramlal, Aged About 19 Years, Village Bansaur, Tehsil Siryari, District Pali, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Singh For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP Mr. Hukum Singh Chouhan for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

16/01/2026 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.137/2025 registered at Police Station Siriyari, District Pali, for the offences under Sections 308(2), 64(1), 64(2)(m) of BNS and Sections 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is aged about 22 years, has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was contended that, as per the version of the victim ‘AN’, about four years prior to the lodging of the FIR, she came into contact with the present petitioner and developed a cordial relationship with him. It was alleged that on one occasion, when she visited the petitioner’s house on his call, she was made to consume sharbat allegedly laced with an intoxicating substance, as a result of which she became unconscious. Taking advantage of her condition, the petitioner allegedly captured obscene photographs and videos of the victim and thereafter, by threatening to circulate the same on social media platforms, subjected her to forcible sexual assault on multiple occasions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the material available on record clearly indicates that the petitioner and the victim were having a prior acquaintance and had developed mutual liking for each other. It was argued that despite the alleged incidents spanning over a period of nearly four years, the victim, though having sufficient opportunities, did not disclose the alleged acts of sexual assault to anyone. It was further submitted that no obscene videos or photographs, which were allegedly used by the petitioner to threaten or blackmail the victim, have been recovered by the investigating agency. In fact, the petitioner has not even been charge-sheeted for any offence under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody, has no criminal antecedents, and that the investigation has already been completed. It was contended that the trial is likely to take a considerable period of time and, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant 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 FIR in the present matter has been lodged after a delay of more than four years. Though in the FIR and in the statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the victim has alleged that she was subjected to forcible sexual assault on multiple occasions under threat of making her obscene photographs and videos viral, no such material has been recovered by the investigating agency. Upon perusal of the case file, this Court is of the opinion that, at this stage, the possibility of the petitioner and the victim having had a teenage love affair and, as a consequence, a consensual physical relationship cannot be ruled out. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Sunil Kumar S/o Kishanlal arrested in connecti