[2026:RJ-JD:1921]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15404/2025 Rajesh Kumar Meena S/o Kailash Singh Meena, Aged About 42 Years, Chankaliya Mohalla, Gadoli, Ps Hanuman Nagar, Dist.

Bhilwara, Raj. (Lodged In Dist.jail Bhilwara)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Kumar Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP Mr. Yogendra Singh Charan for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

13/01/2026 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.234/2025 registered at Police Station Hanuman Nagar, District Bhilwara, for the offences under Sections 332(c), 64(d), 69 and 308(2) of BNS.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. 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 this Court to the contents of the FIR as well as the documents placed on record, including WhatsApp chats exchanged between the petitioner and the prosecutrix ‘S’, learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix, who is a mature married woman, has lodged a false criminal case against the petitioner. It was contended that the FIR has been registered after an unexplained delay of more than one year from the date on which the prosecutrix was allegedly subjected to forcible sexual assault for the first time.

It was further contended that as per the version of the prosecutrix herself, in the month of July, 2024, the petitioner allegedly entered into her house unauthorisedly and made her consume prasad containing an intoxicating substance, after which she fell unconscious and was subjected to forcible sexual assault. It was alleged that the petitioner thereafter captured obscene photographs and videos of the prosecutrix and, by threatening to circulate the same on social media platforms, committed forcible sexual assault/rape on multiple occasions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the material placed on record, including the WhatsApp chats exchanged between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, clearly indicates that the parties were in a consensual relationship. It was argued that when the said relationship came to the notice of the family members, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by giving it a criminal colour.

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case is likely to take a sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail deserves to be extended to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application. However, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that during the pendency of the present bail application, the petitioner and the complainant have entered into a compromise and have decided to amicably settle their disputes and, therefore, he has no objection in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the material available on record.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that, at this stage, the possibility of the petitioner and the prosecutrix, who is a mature married woman, having been in a consensual relationship cannot be ruled out. This Court further finds that the learned Public Prosecutor has not pointed out any specific apprehension regarding the petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses or absconding, in the event he is enlarged on bail. 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 Rajesh Kumar Mee