##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:15058]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II^nd Bail Application No. 3586/2026

Mohammad Riyaz S/o Chand Mohammad, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Bheru Colony, Maroth, P.s. Maroth, District Deedwana-

Kuchaman. (At Present Lodged At Sub Jail Parbatsar)

----Petitioner Versus

State Of Rajathan, Through Pp ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parvez Khan Moyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shri Ram Choudhary, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

02/04/2026

1. The accused-applicant has filed the present II^nd bail application being aggrieved against the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Court(Session Judge), Deedwana in Criminal Misc. Bail No.25/2026 (CNR No.RJDK010001972026) whereby the bail application filed by the accused-applicant under Section 483 B.N.S.S. was rejected. The accused-applicant is behind the bars, pursuant to the F.I.R. No.18/2025 registered at Police Station Maroth, District Deedwana for offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96, 64(1), 64(2)

(M), 127(4) of IPC & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case in hand is a case of consent, which is clear from the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has categorically stated that she went with the accused-applicant at

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 01:22:26 PM)

(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 05:23:17 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15058] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3586/2026] her own volition and the accused-applicant did not commit any forceful sexual assault and rather the relationship between them was consensual. Learned counsel further submits that post passing of the order dated 03.11.2025, whereby the first bail application was dismissed as not pressed, four more witnesses have been examined and the trial is going on at the snail’s pace. He further submits that in total, there are 23 witnesses and 9 witnesses are yet to be examined, which will take sufficient time and therefore, considering the fact that the accused is behind the

bars since 12.03.2025 he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the application and submits that the merits of the case were considered earlier by the Court and also while considering the statements of the prosecutrix recorded before the learned Trial Court as PW-2, the Court was not inclined to grant bail and therefore, the counsel for the accused-applicant had got it dismissed as not press. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that no case of consent is made out as admittedly at the time of commission of the offence, the prosecutrix was 16 years of age only. Thus, as the prosecutrix was minor, no case for consent is made out. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that out of 23 witnesses, 12 witnesses have already been examined and the trial is going on at a decent pace. He further submits that the trial shall be concluded at the earliest and therefore, no case for grant

of bail is made out.

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 01:22:26 PM)

(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 05:23:17 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15058] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3586/2026] 4. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on

record.

5. As per the record, admittedly a complaint came to be lodged by father of the prosecutrix stating therein that his daughter is missing since yesterday i.e. 11.02.2025 and her date of birth is 20.08.2008. The complainant further apprehended that the accused-applicant might have kidnapped his daughter. Based upon the report in question, the police started the search operation and accused and prosecutrix were found and thereafter, statement of prosecutrix under Section 180 BNSS was recorded, wherein she categorically stated the factum of the rape being committed upon her by the accused-applicant. The statements supra, were supported by statements of mother, father and other witnesses, as