[2026:RJ-JD:2918]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15563/2025 Devendra S/o Dinesh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Aalawas Road, Sojat Road, Tehsil Sojat, Police Station Sojat Road, District Pali.

(Lodged In Sub Jail Sojat, District Pali.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.

2. Teena Kumari W/o Tarun Soni, R/o Dhundhla, Marwar Junction, Sojat Road, Pali.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kishan Singh Chauhan Mr. Pradeep Singh Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

16/01/2026

1. This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.200/2025 registered at Police Station Sojat Road, District Pali, for offences under Sections 333(2), 64(1) 64(2)(m) and

308(2) of the BNS.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix, a married major woman, has developed a consensual relationship with the present petitioner about three months prior to filing of the FIR. Learned counsel submitted that the FIR has been lodged on totally false facts and fabricated grounds so also in the impugned FIR, it is alleged that the petitioner who was working as a plumber in the house of the prosecutrix committed forcible sexual assault/rape upon her and thereafter, by threatening to circulate her obscene videos and photographs on social media platform, has subjected her to forcible sexual assault/rape on multiple occasions.

3. Learned counsel submitted that no obscene videos and photographs of the prosecutrix were recovered by the investigating agency from the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the investigating agency has not even filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under I.T. Act. Learned counsel submitted that it was only when the prosecutrix became pregnant and their relationship came to be noticed by her family members, she has roped the petitioner in a false criminal case.

4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the investigation against the petitioner has already been completed and the trial of the case is likely to consume a sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

5. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the prosecutrix, in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS, has levelled specific allegations of she being subjected to forcible sexual assault by the petitioner on multiple occasions and therefore, looking to the seriousness of allegations against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in position to refute the fact that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of more than three months from the date of the alleged incident. However, he was also not in a position to refute the fact that though as per prosecutrix, she was blackmailed and subjected to forcible sexual assault by the petitioner on multiple occasions by threatening her to circulate her obscene videos and photographs on social media platform but no obscene videos and photographs have been recovered from the present petitioner.

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

7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that no obscene videos and photographs have been recovered by the investigating agency from the present petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice in case he is enlarged on bail. Without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, t