[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajkumar Alias Ramkunwar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6249) on 3 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6249]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1122/2026
Rajkumar Alias Ramkunwar S/o Shyamlal, Aged About 21 Years,
Resident Of Takhatpura, (Rajgarh Sinhadi) Thana Parsoli District
Chittorgarh (Lodged In Dist. Jail, Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirender Singh, Sr. Adv. assisted
by Mr. Jagdish Singh
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
03/02/2026
1. This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 483 of BNSS (old Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) in connection
with FIR No.269/2025 dated 13.09.2025, Police Station Gangapur,
District Bhilwara, for the offences under Section 137(2) of the
BNS-2023. After filing challan, offences under Sections 87, 127(4)
& 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 have been added.
2. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case
and false allegations have been levelled against him. He further
submits that in the present case statement of victim was recorded
as PW/1. In her statement, the victim stated that her date of birth
is 20.04.2004 and she specifically denied any such incident as
alleged in the FIR. Subsequent thereto, statement of the
complainant, PW/2, was recorded, wherein she stated that victim's
age at the time of incident was 20 years and that presently she is
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:49:33 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6249] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1122/2026]
21 years of age. In her statement, she further stated that no
incident had ever occurred with her daughter nor she was
abducted nor sexually assaulted.
2.1 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that though in the
FIR it is stated that the date of birth of the victim is 20.04.2008,
which comes to about 17 years & 04 months of age, however, in
the statements of the victim (PW/1) so also the complainant
(PW/2) specifically asserted that on the date of incident she was
aged 20 years and as per victim the date of birth is 20.04.2004.
Based on the above submissions, it is contended by learned
Senior Counsel that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes
this bail application and submits that as per the birth certificate
and the school record, date of birth of the victim is 20.04.2008.
Relying on these documents, it is submitted that the victim was
minor at the time of incident and therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
challan papers.
5. In the present case, the Final Report was submitted after the
investigation, wherein investigating agency has noted the date of
birth of the victim to be 20.04.2008 and based on the statement
as recorded under Sections 180 & 183 BNS-2023, it has been
concluded that offence against the present petitioner is made out.
It is to be noted that subsequent thereto, statement of the victim
as well as the complainant were recorded as PW/1 & PW/2
respectively, wherein they specifically denied about the incident,
which is alleged in the FIR, more so, both have consistently stated
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:49:33 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6249] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1122/2026]
that the age of the victim was 20 years at the time of incident and
even the date of birth is disputed as according to the version of
the victim date of birth is 20.04.2004. On the date of incident
whether the age of victim was below or above 18 years, is to be
decided in trial after leading of the evidence. However, prima facie
considering the statements of the victim and the complainant so
also considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody
since 18.10.2025, in the considered opinion of this Court, no
fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind
the bars for an indefinite period. Thus, without expressing any
opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion
that the bail application filed by the applicant deserves to be
accepted.
6. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of
BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner-Rajkumar alias
Ramkunwar S/o Shyamlal shall be released on bail in
connection with the aforesaid FIR; provided he executes personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial
Court for his appearance before that court on each and every date
of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of
the trial.
7. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
126-Rmathur/-
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:49:33 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
