Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shivalik vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24866) on 20 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:24866]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5637/2025
Shivalik S/o Sunit Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o A-44,
Sahjanand Duplex, Kalali Road, District Baroda, State - Gujarat.
(Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Sunil Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, Public
Prosecutor
Mr. Manvendra Singh Rathore &
Ms. Anjum Parveen Salawat for the
complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
20/05/2025
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.07/2025, registered at Police Station
Kudi Bhagtasani, District - Jodhpur City West for offences under
Sections 376(2)(n) & 506 of the IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public
Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused
the material available on record.
As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant-
prosecutrix 'A' has given a written report on 02.01.2025 to the
SHO, P.S. Kudi Bhagtasani to the effect that in February, 2023
when she visited Baroda along with her friends, she met with
Shivalik. After two days, she returned to Jodhpur and told about
[2025:RJ-JD:24866] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-5637/2025]
Shivalik to her family members. She and Shivalik became friends
and a relation developed between them and on 28.08.2023
Shivalik and his parents came to Jodhpur and their engagement
was done in which they have spent Rs.15-20 lacs. On 27.05.2024
Shivalik came to her house in Jodhpur. At that time nobody was
there in the house. Accused Shivalik tried to commit sexual
intercourse with her to which she denied. Then Shivalik told her
that he will marry her. Thereafter Shivalik committed rape many
times with her on the pretext of marriage. On 03.06.2024
Shivalik committed rape with her in her house on the pretext of
marriage. Thereafter Shivalik took her to Mehandipur Balaji, Jaipur
and Ujjain. Shivalik also stayed in her house from 07.06.2024 to
14.06.2024 and committed sexual intercourse with her without
her wish. Thereafter he went to Baroda. On 28.06.2024, Shivalik
came to Jodhpur and committed rape with her. On 10.08.2024
she went to Baroda on asking of Shivalik to discuss about the
marriage ceremony. There she saw that his behaviour was
changed. His parents said to her that Shivalik is a Cricketer and
many marriage proposals are coming for Shivalik. Shivalik and his
parents broke their engagement/relation. They misbehaved and
manhandled with her and threw away her from the house.
Thereafter she returned to Jodhpur. She asked Shivalik to
maintain their relation but he and his family threatened her not to
tell any one about their relation/engagement.
Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by
Mr. Sunil Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that both
petitioner and the prosecutrix are major. There were consensual
[2025:RJ-JD:24866] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-5637/2025]
relationship between them. Their engagement was also been
fixed. The presocutrix visited many placed viz. Mehandipur Balaji,
Jaipur and Ujjain with the present petitioner. There are many
phone calls and chatting made between the prosecutrix and the
petitioner. The screenshots of WhasApp chatting have been filed
on record. The prosecutrix with her own free will made physical
relations with the present petitioner many times but she did not
make any complain about the same earlier. As per the prosecutrix,
the incident took place on 27.05.2024, when petitioner tried to
make physical relation with her, then why she did not made a
complain regarding the same. Thereafter as per the version of the
prosecutrix, the petitioner made physical relations with her from
07.06.2024 to 14.06.2024 and on 28.06.2024 then also why she
had not raised any objection towards this. This shows that these
physical relations were made with the consent of the prosecutrix
and the petitioner can not be held guilty for the same. The FIR
was lodged on a delayed stage and no reasons have been
assigned for the delay caused in lodging the FIR. The prosecutrix
and her family members started making demand of money from
the petitioner and the petitioner transferred money in her account.
When on some matters, the relations between the prosecutrix and
the petitioner became strained, she falsely implicated the
petitioner in the present case.
Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 28.04.2025, passed in the case of Ravish
Singh Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. : Criminal
Appeal No.2438/2025, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court
[2025:RJ-JD:24866] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-5637/2025]
while allowing the appeal, quashed the FIR and the consequential
proceedings in pursuance thereof.
He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court rendered in the cases of (1) Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs.
State of West Bengal & Anr. (Criminal Appeal arising out of
SLP (Crl.) No.4261/2024) : 2025 LiveLaw (S) 404, (2)
Rajnish Singh @ Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. : 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 478, (3) Prashant Vs. State of NCT of Delhi :
2024 SCC Online SC 3375 and (4) Deepak Gulati Vs. State
of Haryana : (2013) 7 SCC 675.
Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the accused is
in judicial custody since 04.05.2025 and the trial of the case will
take sufficiently long time, therefore, the accused-petitioner may
be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed
the bail application and submitted that the accused has committed
a heinous crime of rape with the prosecutrix on the pretext of
marriage. After the engagement of petitioner-accused and the
prosecutrix, accused tried to commit sexual intercourse with her
to which she denied. On the pretext of marriage, accused
committed rape many times with her. On 03.06.2024 accused
committed rape with her in her house on the assurance that he
will marry her soon. Thereafter accused took her to Mehandipur
Balaji, Jaipur and Ujjain. Accused stayed in her house from
07.06.2024 to 14.06.2024 and committed sexual intercourse with
her without her wish. Thereafter he went to Baroda. On
28.06.2024, accused came to Jodhpur and committed rape with
[2025:RJ-JD:24866] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-5637/2025]
her. On 10.08.2024 she went to Baroda on asking of accused to
discuss about the marriage ceremony. There she saw that
behaviour of the accused Shivalik and his parents was changed.
His parents said to her that Shivalik is a Cricketer and many
marriage proposals are coming for Shivalik. Shivalik and his
parents broke their engagement/relation. They misbehaved and
manhandled with her and threw away her from the house.
Thereafter she returned to Jodhpur. Thereafter she asked Shivalik
to maintain the relation but he and his family members threatened
her not to tell any one about their relation/engagement. Learned
counsel for the complainant submitted that the money which the
accused has given to them, has been returned to him.
Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant while
relying upon the order dated 02.05.2025, passed by this Court in
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3963/2025 (Sumit
Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan), submitted that this Court on the
similar facts have dismissed the bail application of the accused-
petitioner.
Therefore, they prayed that looking to the gravity of the
offence, benefit of bail may not be extended to the petitioner.
From perusal of the material available on record, this Court
finds that engagement of prosecutrix and the present petitioner
was done on 28.08.2023 and they were going to marry in future.
They remained in contact through phone calls. There were
consensual relationship of the prosecutrix and the present
petitioner. Prosecutrix demanded money from the present
petitioner. The petitioner has given money to the prosecutrix as
[2025:RJ-JD:24866] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-5637/2025]
and when she was in need. The copies of screen shots for the
money transactions made between them have also been placed on
record. When on some matters, their relations became strained,
she filed the present case against the petitioner-accused.
From perusal of the screenshots of WhasApp chatting made
between the prosecutrix and the complainant it appears that there
were consensual relations between the prosecutrix and the
present petitioner. The prosecutrix also went with the present
petitioner and visited many places i.e. Mehandipur Balaji, Jaipur
and Ujjain and they both stayed there happily.
There is no earlier complaint/report filed by the prosecutrix
regarding the earlier incident of committing forceful intercourse on
the pretext of marriage.
The facts of the case of Suresh Singh (supra) relied upon
by the learned counsel for the complainant and the facts of this
case are different. In the present case engagement of prosecutrix
and the present petitioner has been done on 28.08.2023 and the
marriage was to be solemnized in near future. They visited many
places. Consensual physical relations took place between them
many times. The prosecutrix demanded money from the
petitioner which he gave. The money transactions from the
account of petitioner to the account of prosecutrix proves the
same. When on some matters, there relations became strained,
the prosecutrix lodged the FIR against the present petitioner.
In the case of Ravish Singh Rana, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed that if there are consensual physical
[2025:RJ-JD:24866] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-5637/2025]
relationship between the parties, the same does not fall within the
ambit of rape.
A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
07.05.2025, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3685/2025
filed on behalf of the present petitioner, has directed the
investigating agency not to file charge-sheet/final report of the
investigation before the competent criminal Court till the next date
and the matter was adjourned to 22.05.2025.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner
Shivalik S/o Sunit Sharma, arrested in connection with F.I.R.
No.07/2025, registered at Police Station Kudi Bhagtasani, District
- Jodhpur City West, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any
other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of
learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each &
every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till
completion of the trial.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J
11-Ramesh Goyal, P.S./-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
