[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohammad Riyaz vs State Of Rajathan (2026:Rj-Jd:15058) on 2 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:15058]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 3586/2026
Mohammad Riyaz S/o Chand Mohammad, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Bheru Colony, Maroth, P.s. Maroth, District Deedwana-
Kuchaman. (At Present Lodged At Sub Jail Parbatsar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajathan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parvez Khan Moyal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shri Ram Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
02/04/2026
1. The accused-applicant has filed the present IInd bail
application being aggrieved against the order dated 19.02.2025
passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Court(Session
Judge), Deedwana in Criminal Misc. Bail No.25/2026 (CNR
No.RJDK010001972026) whereby the bail application filed by the
accused-applicant under Section 483 B.N.S.S. was rejected. The
accused-applicant is behind the bars, pursuant to the F.I.R.
No.18/2025 registered at Police Station Maroth, District Deedwana
for offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96, 64(1), 64(2)
(M), 127(4) of IPC & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case in
hand is a case of consent, which is clear from the statement of the
prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has
categorically stated that she went with the accused-applicant at
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 01:22:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15058] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3586/2026]
her own volition and the accused-applicant did not commit any
forceful sexual assault and rather the relationship between them
was consensual. Learned counsel further submits that post
passing of the order dated 03.11.2025, whereby the first bail
application was dismissed as not pressed, four more witnesses
have been examined and the trial is going on at the snail's pace.
He further submits that in total, there are 23 witnesses and 9
witnesses are yet to be examined, which will take sufficient time
and therefore, considering the fact that the accused is behind the
bars since 12.03.2025 he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
opposes the application and submits that the merits of the case
were considered earlier by the Court and also while considering
the statements of the prosecutrix recorded before the learned Trial
Court as PW-2, the Court was not inclined to grant bail and
therefore, the counsel for the accused-applicant had got it
dismissed as not press. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits
that no case of consent is made out as admittedly at the time of
commission of the offence, the prosecutrix was 16 years of age
only. Thus, as the prosecutrix was minor, no case for consent is
made out. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that out of
23 witnesses, 12 witnesses have already been examined and the
trial is going on at a decent pace. He further submits that the trial
shall be concluded at the earliest and therefore, no case for grant
of bail is made out.
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 01:22:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15058] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3586/2026]
4. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as
learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on
record.
5. As per the record, admittedly a complaint came to be lodged by
father of the prosecutrix stating therein that his daughter is missing
since yesterday i.e. 11.02.2025 and her date of birth is 20.08.2008.
The complainant further apprehended that the accused-applicant
might have kidnapped his daughter. Based upon the report in
question, the police started the search operation and accused and
prosecutrix were found and thereafter, statement of prosecutrix
under Section 180 BNSS was recorded, wherein she categorically
stated the factum of the rape being committed upon her by the
accused-applicant. The statements supra, were supported by
statements of mother, father and other witnesses, as also, the site
where the incident took place was identified based upon the
information given by the accused. However, prosecutrix in her
statements recorded under Section 183 BNSS, has stated that she
went with the accused-applicant at her own volition and the sexual
act between them was consensual. Needless to emphasize that the
prosecutrix being 16 years of age, there is no question of any
consent. However, the prosecutrix in her statement before the
learned Trial Court as PW-2 has specifically stated that she was
forcefully sexually assaulted by the accused-applicant on 5 different
occasions. She had remained firm in her cross-examination with
regard to the assertion of rape being committed upon her by the
accused-applicant.
6. Considering the statements of the prosecutrix, the earlier
bail application was not pressed by the counsel for the accused-
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 01:22:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15058] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3586/2026]
applicant. At the time when the earlier bail application was not
pressed on 03.11.2025, statement of 8 witnesses had already
recorded. Post that statement of 4 more witnesses had been
recorded. Thus, it cannot be said that the trial is going on at a
snail's pace and is rather being expediated by the learned Trial
Court. Considering the fact that the charge-sheet was also filed
and the statement of the prosecutrix was already on record when
the earlier bail application was decided, this Court finds that there
are no new circumstanaces for grant of bail. The present Criminal
Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application is, therefore, dismissed.
However, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial
and conclude the same expeditiously.
7. All pending applications stand disposed off.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
205-charul/-
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 01:22:26 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
