SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 15552

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
BHARAT ALIAS BHARTI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 142 / 2026



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:22620]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 142/2026

Bharat Alias Bharti S/o Shyam Lal, Aged About 18 Years, Chak

Dullapur Keri Police Station Hindumalkot Tehsil And District Sri

Ganganagar (Lodged In Central Jail Sriganganagar)

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

2. Santaro Bai W/o Sohan Lal, Dullapur Keri Police Station

Hindumalkot Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himmat Jagga

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

12/05/2026

1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is

filed by the applicant-accused Bharat @ Bharti, seeking bail

in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No. 183/2025

dated 08.07.2025 registered at Police Station Hindumalkot,

District- Sriganganagar, for the offence under Sections 5(L),

5(J)(II) and 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 and 64(2)(m) & 331(3) of the BNS,

2023.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant

has been falsely implicated in the matter and the

investigation against him is complete and he is no more

required in investigation. He further submits that there are

no chance of fleeing of applicant-accused from the

(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 01:59:10 PM)

(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:34:13 AM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JD:22620] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-142/2026]

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the

applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate

with investigation/trial, which will take time.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, after filing of

the charge-sheet, the statement of the victim has already

been recorded as PW-4 and, in her cross-examination, she

has specifically admitted that she continued to maintain

relations with the present petitioner despite her engagement

elsewhere. He further submitted that the victim was well

aware of her relationship with the present petitioner and still

she was having an affair with him. It is also submitted that

the place of occurrence was a crowded area where easy

access to assistance was available to the victim at the time

of the incident; however, despite that, she neither called for

help nor raised any hue and cry. He further submitted that

the petitioner/accused has been in custody since his arrest.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the aforesaid

contentions and vehemently opposed the bail application,

submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in

nature.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned

Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by

both the parties.

6. On the basis of the report lodged by the mother of the victim

on 08.07.2025, a criminal case was registered as FIR No.

183/2025 at Police Station Hindumalkot, District

Sriganganagar, for the alleged rape of her minor daughter,

whose date of birth is 08.11.2008. After investigation, the

(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 01:59:10 PM)

(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:34:13 AM)

##PAGE3##

[2026:RJ-JD:22620] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-142/2026]

police arrested the petitioner-accused on 19.09.2025 and

filed a charge-sheet. The material available on record

indicates that five witnesses were examined, including PW-4

(the victim) and PW-5 (the mother of the victim).

7. The first date of the incident, as per PW-1, was January

2025. At the time when this fact was revealed by the victim,

she was carrying a foetus of approximately 16 weeks, which

was later aborted and treated by PW-3, Dr. Shachi

Pancharia. The age of the victim at the time of the incident

was above 16 years, while the age of the petitioner was just

above 18 years. It is also noted that the victim was already

engaged to someone else on the date of the incident.

8. Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the record, we

have found that the applicant-accused is no more required in

the investigation and he is in custody for quite some time.

The further proceedings will take its own time, theref

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top