[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Malaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:15230) on 2 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:15230] (1 of 5) [CRLMB-2076/2026]
]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2076/2026
Malaram S/o Chutra Ram, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Jagmal Ka
Talab Setrau Police Station Ramsar District Barmer, Rajasthan
(Lodged In Dist. Jail Rajsamand)
----Applicant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Pooja Kanwar D/o Ram Singh, R/o Railway Station
Kuathal, Police Station Diwer, District Rajsamand
----Respondents
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Awar Dan Ujjawal.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
02/04/2026
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. at the instance of
accused-applicant. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated
herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
2. Concerned Police Station Dewair
3. District Rajsamand
4. Offences alleged 137(2) and 64(2)(m) of
BNS and Section 5(L)/6 of
POCSO Act and Section 84
of J.J. Act.
5. Date of passing of impugned 31.01.2026
order
(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15230] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-2076/2026]
2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted the report dated
23.02.2026 regarding service of intimation of present case upon
the victim / her parents / guardian, which is taken on record.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-applicant that FIR in
question has been lodged on false and concocted facts and
accused-applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case,
whereas the victim 'P' voluntarily with her free consent went along
with the applicant, but later on registered FIR against him.
4. While referring to the contents of the FIR, it is contended that
the accused and the victim 'P' were having old acquaintance and
victim had accompanied the accused-applicant on her own volition.
The victim and accused-applicant had travelled together to Jaipur
and then proceeded for darshan at Khatu Shyamji. Subsequently,
both went to Ahmedabad and then to Barmer. It is stated that
throughout the course of this journey, victim 'P' did not raise any
alarm or complaint. However, upon returning home, the present
FIR came to be lodged, allegedly containing a fabricated narrative.
It has also been argued that the allegation of forcible intercourse
having occurred in a sleeper bus appears inherently improbable.
5. It is further pointed out that the medical examination report
does not reveal any external injuries on the body of the victim 'P'.
Learned counsel has also contended that the age difference
between the parties is not substantial, inasmuch as the victim 'P'
was approximately 16 years and 6 months of age at the time of
the alleged incident, whereas the accused-applicant is 21 years of
age.
6. It is submitted that after filing of the charge-sheet in the
present case, even the statements of victim/prosecutrix as well as
(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15230] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-2076/2026]
her parents have already been recorded. Learned counsel for the
applicant has invited attention of this Court towards the
statements of prosecutrix/victim 'P', wherein she during
examination-in-chief has stated her date of birth to be 29.04.2007
and she has refused to identify the present accused. On said
statements, learned trial Court has declared said witness/
prosecutrix (PW-1) as hostile. Apart from the prosecutrix, her
mother (PW-2) as well as father (PW-3) have also turned hostile.
7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the present bail application and submitted that the victim
'P' is of the tender age of only 16 years and 6 months and thus,
the theory of consent as invoked by learned counsel for the
applicant is of no consequence.
8. It is stated that all the details of travel made together were
mentioned in the FIR, but the same was under duress and under
threat of dire consequences of family members of victim 'P'. It is
further stated that such crimes relating to girl of minor age are
growing multi-fold in the society and no lenient treatment should
be advanced to the accused applicant.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
10. Perusal of the record shows that applicant and victim 'P' were
in continuous contact with each other. Although, the allegation of
duress and threatening were leveled, but other facts stated in the
FIR clearly suggest that the victim 'P' went along with accused
applicant and remained with him at various locations and travelled
together at public places in public transport, however, during the
entire period, victim 'P' has neither shown any resistance nor
(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15230] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-2076/2026]
raised any alarm. Though, this Court is aware about the rigours of
provisions of POCSO Act, but the peculiar facts of present case
shows that the victim 'P' is above 16 years of age and the
surrounding circumstances clearly suggest the initial prevailing
consent of victim 'P' in the present case and that only after coming
back to her home, present FIR has been lodged. .
11. The medical report nowhere suggests any external bodily
injury upon the victim 'P'. This Court is also persuaded by the fact
that prosecutrix, her father and mother have already turned
hostile, which will have its own obvious effect over the story of
prosecution during trial.
12. Apart from the tender age of victim 'P', this Court is inclined
to take into consideration the age of applicant which is of 21 years
and if the accused applicant is kept in long incarceration, the same
would affect his psychological as well as future prospects.
13. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of
the case and considering the fact that challan has already been
filed; conclusion of the trial is going to take a considerable time,
accused-applicant is in custody since 21.10.2025 and no useful
purpose would be served by continued incarceration of applicant-
accused, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of
the case, I deem it just and proper to extend benefit of bail to the
accused-applicant.
14. Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 483
BNSS, 2023 is allowed. The accused-applicant Malaram S/o Shri
Chutra Ram arrested in connection with FIR No.131/2025, Police
Station Dewair, District Rajsamand shall be released on bail on his
(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15230] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-2076/2026]
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
15. Applicant shall be required to appear before that Court on all
dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
16. Needless to mention that the above observations made by
this Court are only prima-facie observations for disposal of present
bail application and the same shall however, not come in the way
of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on
ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
41-A.Arora/-
(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
