Bail may be granted when the accused has no criminal antecedents and has spent a significant period in custody, especially when the trial is expected to take considerable time, regardless of the merits of the case.

Order

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 265/2025 registered at Police Station Loonkarnsar, District Bikaner for the offences under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 126(2) of BNS.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and victim were in contact and in between 01.10.2025 upto 27.10.2025, they have communicated 206 times through mobile. It is also contended that the incident of rape was reported on 27.10.2025, however, the report was lodged with a delay of three days. It is also contended that on 27.10.2025 also, the petitioner was in connectivity with the prosecutrix and they communicated 12 times on mobile. The prosecutrix/victim is a married lady and in order to pressurize the accused a false FIR has been lodged. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 02.12.2025 and the trial/investigation of the case may take considerable time, there are no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioner, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that police after thorough investigation, it has been found that the petitioner committed rape with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix though was in relationship with the petitioner, however, on the date of incident, the petitioner committed rape with the prosecutrix, despite her resistance. It is also contended that the victim received three injuries at her bodily parts. The delay of three days itself cannot be fatal in a case of rape. It is also contended that the petitioner and the prosecutrix are close relatives and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or try to pressurize the victim, therefore, considering the aforesaid fact, the bail application of the petitioner deserves dismissal.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

5. Considering the fact that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 27.10.2025 and the trial/investigation of the case may take considerable time, there are no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioner, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Hansraj S/o Khayali Ram, in connection with FIR No. 265/2025 registered at Police Station Loonkarnsar, District Bikaner, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.