Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Criminal Case Citing Evidentiary Inconsistencies and Long Investigation Delays - 2026-03-17

Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

Uncertain Age Records and Investigation Delays: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail

In a significant order, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has granted bail to two petitioners accused in a criminal matter, highlighting the necessity of assessing the reliability of age documentation and the impact of substantial investigative delays. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit presided over the matter, underscoring that while certain allegations are serious, the evidentiary inconsistencies regarding the victim's age created sufficient grounds for relief.

The Background of the Dispute

The case involves petitioners Vikram Bharti and Prakash Bharti, who were arrested on February 27, 2025, in connection with an F.I.R. registered three years after the alleged incident. The defense argued that the accused were not named in the initial investigation or the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC. Furthermore, the prosecutrix herself admitted in court (P.W. 7) that she could not identify the assailants, noting the incident occurred on a dark night with the attackers' faces covered.

A central point of contention in the case was the victim’s age. While the F.I.R. initially cited her age as 15, medical and radiological examinations estimated it to be between 17 and 19 years. The prosecution’s reliance on school records was challenged due to the absence of the original admission form.

Contentions of the Parties

Counsel for the petitioners emphasized that the school records were unreliable, citing the testimony of the school principal who admitted that the original admission file was missing—a position supported by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit . The defense further noted that the victims had submitted written statements prior to the F.I.R. stating no such incident occurred.

The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail, arguing that the gravity of the offenses alleged necessitated continued custody.

Legal Analysis and Observations

The Court recognized that the determination of age is a complex matter involving the appreciation of evidence, typically reserved for the trial stage. However, for the purposes of bail, the Court found the ambiguity in the prosecution’s documentary evidence against the medical reports concerning.

According to Birad Mal Singhvi , entries in school registers lack probative value unless supported by the testimony of a person with specific knowledge, such as a parent, who can vouch for the original entry source. The absence of such evidence in this case formed a key pillar of the Court's reasoning.

Key Observations from the Judgment:

• "At the outset, this Court finds that there are apparent contradictions with regard to the age of the prosecutrix."
• "Prima facie, there exists inconsistency between the documentary and medical evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix."
• "The determination of the victim’s age involves appreciation of evidence and is therefore a matter for trial, not for consideration at the stage of bail."
• "...considering... [the] fact that there is a dispute with regard to the age of the prosecutrix; the petitioners have been arrested after a considerable delay of about three years; [and] charge-sheet has already been filed... [the Court] deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail."

The Court's Ruling

Exercising its discretion under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC), the High Court allowed the bail application. The petitioners were ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each.

This decision reinforces the principle that where the foundational evidence presented by the prosecution—such as age documentation in a case sensitive to the victim's minor status—is inconsistent, the courts will exercise caution before denying liberty, especially where investigations have reached a stage where incarceration serves little further purpose.