Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sumit Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:21371) on 2 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:21371]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3963/2025
Sumit Singh S/o Late Shri Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 19
Years, R/o Ward No.15, Sikligar Mohalla, Bhatta Colony,
Hanumangarh Junction, Tehsil & District Hanumangarh, (Raj.).
(Presently Lodged In District Jail, Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Khichi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, Public
Prosecutor
Mr. R.S. Gill for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
02/05/2025
This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439
Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.39/2025, registered at Police Station
Mahila Thana, District - Hanumangarh for offences under Sections
64(2)(M) of BNS.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public
Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused
the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
case of the prosecution, the complainant-prosecutrix has given a
written report to the effect that Sumit made a friendship with her
and took her mobile phone number. Thereafter, on the pretext of
[2025:RJ-JD:21371] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3963/2025]
marriage with her, Sumit committed rape with the prosecutrix. He
also taken obscene photographs and made video of the
prosecutrix and threatened her to make her photographs and
videos viral. He made physical relations with her 3-4 times at the
house of Jagdish on the pretext of marriage with her. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecutrix and the
present petitioner both are adult and there were consensual
relationship between them. The FIR has been lodged at a delayed
stage. If there was any forceful intercourse, the prosecutrix must
have lodged the FIR on time. She reported the incident after six
months. It is wrong that the petitioner had ever promised her to
marriage with her and on the strength of his promise he made
physical relations with the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the
petitioner argued that accused-petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Nitin B. Nikhare Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.:
Criminal Appeal Arising out of the SLP (Crl.) No.1889/2024
so also the judgment rendered in the case of Sonu @ Subhash
Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. : Criminal Appeal
No.233/2021 and submitted that in the matter of consensual
relationship, benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
accused is in judicial custody since 10.03.2025 and the trial of the
case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the accused-
petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
[2025:RJ-JD:21371] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3963/2025]
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application
and submitted that accused has committed a heinous crime of
rape with the prosecutrix. He submitted that there were love
relations with the prosecutrix and the present petitioner. The
petitioner had made a promise to marry with the prosecutrix,
therefore, she did not tell anyone about the incident of rape and
thereafter he has taken obscene photographs and videos of the
prosecutrix and asked the prosecutrix to make physical relations
with him otherwise he will make viral her obscene photographs
and videos. The matter was also taken by the Panchayat, in which
the petitioner and his family members refused to marry him with
the prosecutrix. The petitioner has made physical relations many
time on the pretext of marriage with her. The prosecutrix in her
statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS has stated that
the accused has committed rape with her on the pretext of
marriage with her. Therefore, he prayed that looking to the
gravity of the offence, benefit of bail may not be extended to the
petitioner.
This Court finds that at this stage, when the prosecutrix and
other relevant prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, it
cannot be said that the accused has not committed any offence.
The involvement of the accused in the commission of offence can
be ascertained only after recording of the statements of the
witnesses. No comment can be made on the merits/demerits of
the case at this stage.
[2025:RJ-JD:21371] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3963/2025]
The case law referred by learned counsel for the petitioner in
Nitin B. Nikhare (supra) is with regard to quashing of criminal
proceedings arising out of an FIR. Another case Sonu @ Subhash
Kumar (supra) relates to an appeal filed against the judgment of
a learned Single Judge in a case of quashing the charge-sheet.
Both the aforesaid judgment does not help the petitioner in
the present case where the physical relations were made on the
promise and pretext of marriage with the prosecutrix and before
the Panchayat, the petitioner and his family members refused to
marry him with the prosecutrix.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused-petitioner.
The bail application is, therefore, rejected at this stage.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J
160-Ramesh Goyal, P.S./-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
