[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Govind vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:8289) on 13 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8289]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 518/2026
Govind S/o Narayan, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Nayatalab
Kanadoki Ka Pada Wadgun, Police Station Bhungra, District
Banswara, Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged In District Jail,
Banswara)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Rangji S/o Rupa Bamniya, R/o Kanadoki Ka Pada,
Bhungra, District Banswara, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shive Kumar Bhati
Mr. Bharat Gurjar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh, PP with
Mr. O.P. Choudhary
Mr. Vikram Bishnoi (for complainant)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
13/02/2026
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. 114/2025 dated 18.10.2025, Police Station Bhungra,
District Banwara for the offences under Section 137(2) of
BNS, 2023. During investigation, offences under Section 87,
127(4) and 64(2)(m) of BNS, 2023 and Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO
Act, were added.
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. The petitioner has been arrested in
relation to the incident which allegedly occurred on 08.10.2025 for
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 02:42:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8289] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-518/2026]
which an FIR was lodged on 18.10.2025. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of
almost 10 days and therefore, story as narrated in the FIR is
highly doubtful. He also submits that as a matter of fact petitioner
is aged about 19 years and the age of victim is 17 years and 3
months on the date of alleged incident and has also referred to
the messages so also photographs to indicate that both were
having consensual relation and there was no forceful act for which
the alleged offence is registered. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that as a matter of fact the FIR was
lodged on some mis-understanding and subsequently, the parties
have entered into a compromise. The petitioner is in judicial
custody since 11.12.2025 and the trial will take sufficiently long
time, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes this bail
application and submits that the alleged sexual assault has been
committed upon a minor girl and therefore, the petitioner may not
be enlarged on bail. He submits that there is specific allegation of
sexual assault on the present petitioner in the statement recorded
under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS.
3.1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant submits
that the parties have entered into compromise and FIR was lodged
due to some mis-understanding and the complainant has no
objection if the petitioner is enlarged on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public
Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant and perused
the material available on record.
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 02:42:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8289] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-518/2026]
5. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of this case and after perusing the case diary so
also the fact that there is a delay in lodging of FIR; the adolescent
age of petitioner and victim; and the statement recorded under
Section 180 and 183, BNSS narrating the manner in which the
incident occurred, 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- Govind S/o
Narayan, 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
13-AbhishekK/-
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 02:42:51 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
