[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bharat Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:51818) on 1 December, 2025
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2025:RJ-JD:51818]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13368/2025
Bharat Kumar S/o Shri Poonam Chand, Aged About 22 Years, R/
o Kundanpur, Police Station Banjana, District Ratlam, M.p,
Presently Residing At Khandu Colony, Police Station Kotwali,
District Banswara, Rajasthan. (Presently Petitioner Is Confined At
Distt. Jail Banswara)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Kishor Kumar S/o Shri Deva Ji Yadav, R/o Khandu Colony,
Police Station Kotwali, District Banswara, Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. VK Gaur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
01/12/2025
1. The instant bail application has been filed by the applicant
under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.). The applicant has been
arrested in connection with FIR No. 75/2022 registered at Police
Station Kotwali Banswara, District Banswara for the
offence(s) under Section 363, 366, 344, 376(2)(N) and
376(3) of IPC and under Section 5(L)/6 and 5(J)(ii) of
POCSO Act.
2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is
behind the bars since 18.05.2022, which is near about more than
three and a half years, only three prosecution witnesses including
victim and her parents have been examined and no other
(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 12:57:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51818] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13368/2025]
prosecution witnesses has turned up, petitioner is a young boy of
19 years and FSL report is negative and till date no DNA has been
submitted by the prosecution, the trial may take long time to
conclude the trial. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the
applicant may be enlarged on bail.
3. In support of his submission, counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon and referred judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Mohd. Muslim Alias Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
[(2023) 18 SCC 166], Hardik Harsadbhai Parmar v. Sate of
Gujarat [2025 Supreme (Online) (SC) 11156] and the Order
dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Rambabu v. State of Rajasthan: Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No. 5648/2025.
Counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No. 8523/2024), in which, while granting bail it has been
observed as under:-
"9. The incident in the present case occurred on
25.06.2020 and the petitioner was arrested soon thereafter
on 26.06.2020. By now, 6 co-accused have been granted
bail. As the prosecution wishes to examine 17 witnesses,
the trial is unlikely to conclude on a near date.
10. Considering the above and to avoid the situation of
the trial process itself being the punishment
particularly when there is presumption of innocence
under the Indian jurisprudence, we deem it
appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner-Balwinder
Singh, it is ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail
conditions be imposed by the learned trial court."
4. Per contra, none appears for the complainant despite
service. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail
application.
(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 12:57:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51818] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13368/2025]
5. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the
parties and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the
case that the age of the petitioner as well as the age of the victim
which is nearer to 16 at the time of the incident, petitioner is in
judicial custody since more than three and a half years and the
trial has not been concluded, first bail application of the petitioner
was dismissed as withdrawn in SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 12652/2022 vide order dated 16.01.2024, the fact that the
trial in the present criminal case has not progressed, due to which
fundamental right of life and liberty of petitioners, enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is being infringed;
there are no criminal antecedents of petitioner; taking guidance
from the judgments and order of Hon'ble Supreme Court as
referred hereinabove but without commenting on the merits and
demerits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to
enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.
6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is
allowed and it is ordered that the accused-applicant Bharat
Kumar S/o Poonam Chand arrested in connection with
aforesaid FIR 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 lower court for
his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of
hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
74-Jatin/-
(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 12:57:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
