[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6889) on 6 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6889]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1103/2026
Sunil S/o Shri Madanlal, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of
Mehrana Tehsil Degana District Nagaur Raj. (At Present Lodged
In Sub Jail Merta)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Ms. P, Resident Of Luniyas Police Station Thanwala District
Naguar
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramavtar Tada
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP
Mr. Binja Ram for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
06/02/2026
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. 252/2025 dated 03.12.2025, Police Station
Thanwala, District Nagaur, for the offences under Sections 74,
331(4) & 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sec 7/8 & 11/12 of POCSO Act,
2012.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the case and false allegations have
been levelled against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while
referring to the statement of victim recorded under Section 180 of
BNSS, submits that the act alleged have been committed by the
petitioner does not constitute an offence under POCSO Act and
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:56:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6889] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1103/2026]
even if it does, the alleged act does not travel beyond the scope of
Section 11/12 of POCSO Act. The petitioner is in judicial custody
since 09.12.2025 and the trial will take sufficiently long time,
therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on
behalf of complainant vehemently opposes this bail application
and submits that victim aged is about 17 years and petitioner
committed trespass at midnight over victim's house to commit
crime under POCSO Act. However, he could not succeed in doing
so. However, considering the act of the petitioner so also
considering the criminal antecedents, petitioner does not deserve
to be enlarged on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
5. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of this case and after perusing challan papers so
also considering the statement of the victim, in the considered
opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by
keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period as
the trial will take sufficiently long time. Thus, without expressing
any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the
opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to
be accepted.
6. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of
BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner- Sunil S/o Shri
Madanlal, 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/-
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:56:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6889] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1103/2026]
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
173-AbhishekK/-
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:56:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
