[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhoma Ram Alias Suwa Maharaj vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:7894]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 155/2026
Bhoma Ram Alias Suwa Maharaj S/o Shri Sukhram, Aged About
42 Years, R/o Gigasar, P.s. Deshnok, District Bikaner (Presently
Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Shanti Devi W/o Mangi Lal, R/o Gigasar, P.s. Deshnok
District Bikaner
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ratana Ram
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh, PP
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary -for
complainant.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
Conclusion of Arguments &
Reserved on : 11/02/2026
Pronounced on : 13/02/2026
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act at the instance of accused-appellant. The requisite
details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
2. Concerned Police Station Deshnok
3. District Bikaner
4. Offences alleged in the FIR 70(1), 64(2)(m), 331(6) &
351(3) of BNS-2023 and
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989
5. Offences added, if any
6. Date of passing of impugned 06.01.2026
order
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 01:28:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7894] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-155/2026]
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that no
case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his
incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the
case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-
appellant and he has been made an accused based on conjectures
and surmises.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the FIR was
lodged on 11.05.2025 regarding an incident alleged to have
occurred about three months prior to the date of lodging of the
FIR. He submitted that the age of the prosecutrix is 24 years. In
the FIR it has been alleged that the appellant has committed
sexual assault and apart from the present appellant, allegations of
sexual assault have also been alleged on co-accused Babu Lal. As
a matter of fact, the facts narrated in the present FIR so also the
investigation concluded against co-accused Babu Lal, indicate that
there was consensual relation between the appellant the
prosecutrix. There are numerous telephonic conversations
between the appellant and the prosecutrix including some calls to
the husband of the prosecutrix. He further submitted that there is
evidence of transfer of money between the appellant and the
prosecutrix. The appellant is 60% disabled person and is in judicial
custody since 05.01.2026.
3.1 Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that co-
accused Babu Lal against whom the prosecutrix have alleged
allegation of committing sexual assault in the pretext of some
obscene videos in his possession, has been enlarged on bail by a
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 01:28:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7894] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-155/2026]
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2025
passed in S.B.Cr. Appeal (Sb) No.2309/2025.
Based on the above submissions, it is contended by learned
counsel for the appellant that the appellant, who is presently in
judicial custody, is entitled to be enlarged on bail as the trial will
take sufficiently long time to conclude.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor so also learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently opposed this
appeal. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that co-
accused Babu Lal was enlarged on bail after he was in judicial
custody for more than six months. He further submitted that the
investigation against the present appellant is pending and
therefore, the appellant may not be enlarged on bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public
Prosecutor so also learned counsel appearing for the complainant
and perused the material available on record.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for
both the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, and
the challan papers and the fact that there is delay in lodging of
FIR so also considering the fact that there are numerous
telephonic conversations between the appellant and the
prosecutrix; the appellant is 60% disabled and co-accused Babu
Lal has already been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 17.12.2025 passed in S.B.Cr. Appeal
(Sb) No.2309/2025, this Court is of the considered view that no
fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant behind
bars for an indefinite period. Thus, without expressing any opinion
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 01:28:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7894] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-155/2026]
on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that
the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed.
7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/
ST Cases (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) and Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Bikaner is set aside. It is ordered that the
accused-appellant - Bhomaram @ Suwa Maharaj S/o Shri
Sukharam arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be
released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond of
Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear
before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called
upon to do so.
8. 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
Rmathur/-
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 01:28:08 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
