[2026:RJ-JD:3390]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9313/2025 Sushil Kumar S/o Jagdish Huda, Aged About 23 Years, Ward No. 8, Upo 1-F, Bada Shivpur, Fatuhi Police Station Hindumalkot District Sriganganagar. (Lodged In Dist. Jail, Sriganganagar)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Dhaka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Ram Prajapati, PP Mr. Kuldeep Sharma for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

20/01/2026 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.63/2025 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana (Hanumangarh), District Hanumangarh, for the offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 127(2), 115(2) and 308(2) of BNS.

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 towards the FIR and other material available on record, learned counsel submitted that, as per the prosecutrix herself, she came in contact with the present petitioner about one year prior to the lodging of the FIR through the social media application Snapchat. Thereafter, the petitioner and the prosecutrix started talking and exchanging messages with each other. It was further alleged by the prosecutrix that the petitioner took screenshots of their messages and subsequently started pressurizing her to marry him. By threatening to make the said messages and voice recordings viral, the petitioner allegedly compelled the prosecutrix to leave her house with him on 28.02.2025. The further allegation against the petitioner is that he took the prosecutrix in his car to various places and committed forcible sexual assault upon her on multiple occasions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the submissions, contended that the prosecutrix is a major and was having a love affair with the petitioner. It was submitted that on 28.02.2025, the prosecutrix left her parental house of her own volition and travelled with the petitioner to different places. During this period, the prosecutrix stayed with the petitioner in hotels situated in thickly populated areas and, despite having ample opportunities, did not disclose to anyone that she was being subjected to any forcible sexual assault or rape.

Learned counsel further submitted that, in fact, the petitioner and the prosecutrix intended to marry each other; however, when the prosecutrix was recovered by the police pursuant to a complaint lodged by her family members, she falsely implicated the petitioner in the present criminal case.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the investigation has already been completed; the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude; and therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

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

Having considered the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case, and after a careful perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the possibility of the prosecutrix and the petitioner, who are aged about 21 years and 23 years respectively, being in a consensual relationship, cannot be ruled out at this stage. This Court prima facie finds that though an allegation has been levelled against the petitioner of subjecting the prosecutrix to forcible sexual assault/rape on multiple occasion under a threat to viral her obscene snaps and messages, however, the FIR against him is not lodged for offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

This Court also prima facie finds that the investigation against the petitioner has already been completed and learned Public Prosecutor