[2026:RJ-JD:5079]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 614/2026 Rajesh S/o Shri Banshilal, Aged About 26 Years, Rid, Tehsilparbatsar, District-Didwana Kuchaman. (Presently Lodged At Sub Jail Parbatsar)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Geeta D/o Shobharam, Rid, Police Station Peelwa, District Didwana Kuchaman, Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Father Shobharam S/o Devaram, R/o Rid, Police Station Peelwa, District Didwana Kuchaman.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Shrimali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP Mr. Gopal Singh Bhati for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

28/01/2026 This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.152/2025 registered at Police Station Peelwa, District Didwana, for offences under Sections 137(2),74,75 BNS and Section 7/8,11/12 of the POCSO Act.

As per the prosecution case, victim submitted a written report at Police Station Peelwa, Didwana alleging that on 14.10.2025 while she had gone out of her house to throw garbage, the co-accused Sunil, who was present on motorcycle lured the victim and made her sit on the said motorcycle.

It is alleged that while proceeding towards Parbatsar Road, the co-accused Sunil met his associate i.e. the present petitioner Rajesh, and thereafter both of them took the victim towards Parbatsar Road on the said motorcycle, where co- accused Sunil is stated to have molested the victim on the roadside, whereas no such allegation of molestation has been levelled against the petitioner. On the victim raising protest, both the accused allegedly left her near the house of one Biram Regar at Bajwas.

It is further alleged that subsequently the victim’s family members, namely, her mother Smt. Shanti Devi, sister Karishma, brother Manish and brother-in-law Kaluram Regar, took her back to her house. Owing to continuous questioning by the family members and villagers regarding the incident, the victim, being in a distressed state of mind, allegedly jumped into a well situated near her house, as a result whereof she sustained injuries including fracture of the right leg and injury on the chin. She was rescued and admitted to JLN Hospital, Ajmer and was discharged from the hospital on 23.11.2025.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that, as per the contents of the FIR itself, the victim has categorically alleged molestation only against the co- accused Sunil and no such allegation has been levelled against the present petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted the parties have decided to amicably settle the dispute and have entered into a compromise.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties, therefore has no objection to the grant of bail to the petitioner.

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

Having considered the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon a careful perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that, in the FIR itself, the victim has categorically stated that the present petitioner did not molest her and that the specific allegation of molestation has been levelled only against the co-accused Sunil. Further, taking into consideration the affidavit filed by the victim regarding the compromise arrived at between the parties before the trial court, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the bai