[2026:RJ-JD:8289]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 518/2026 Govind S/o Narayan, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Nayatalab Kanadoki Ka Pada Wadgun, Police Station Bhungra, District Banswara, Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged In District Jail, Banswara)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Rangji S/o Rupa Bamniya, R/o Kanadoki Ka Pada, Bhungra, District Banswara, Raj.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shive Kumar Bhati Mr. Bharat Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh, PP with Mr. O.P. Choudhary Mr. Vikram Bishnoi (for complainant)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

13/02/2026

1. This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS (old Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) in connection with FIR No. 114/2025 dated 18.10.2025, Police Station Bhungra, District Banwara for the offences under Section 137(2) of BNS, 2023. During investigation, offences under Section 87, 127(4) and 64(2)(m) of BNS, 2023 and Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act, were added.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and false allegations have been levelled against him. The petitioner has been arrested in relation to the incident which allegedly occurred on 08.10.2025 for which an FIR was lodged on 18.10.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of almost 10 days and therefore, story as narrated in the FIR is highly doubtful. He also submits that as a matter of fact petitioner is aged about 19 years and the age of victim is 17 years and 3 months on the date of alleged incident and has also referred to the messages so also photographs to indicate that both were having consensual relation and there was no forceful act for which the alleged offence is registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as a matter of fact the FIR was lodged on some mis-understanding and subsequently, the parties have entered into a compromise. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 11.12.2025 and the trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes this bail application and submits that the alleged sexual assault has been committed upon a minor girl and therefore, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. He submits that there is specific allegation of sexual assault on the present petitioner in the statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS.

3.1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant submits that the parties have entered into compromise and FIR was lodged due to some mis-understanding and the complainant has no objection if the petitioner is enlarged on bail.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.

5. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of this case and after perusing the case diary so also the fact that there is a delay in lodging of FIR; the adolescent age of petitioner and victim; and the statement recorded under Section 180 and 183, BNSS narrating the manner in which the incident occurred, in the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period as the trial will take sufficiently long time. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

6. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner- Govind S/o Narayan, shall be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR; provided he executes personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court