[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deva Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9349) on 19 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:9349]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 274/2026
Deva Ram S/o Bhera Ram, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of
Bhadva, Police Station Badu, District Didwana-Kuchaman. (At
Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Merta)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Maina D/o Dharma Ram, Aged About 19 Years, Resident
Of Mamdoli Police Station Badu District Didwana-
Kuchaman.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravindra Acharya
Mr. Rahul Parihar
Mr. Surendra Pratap
Mr. Pradeep Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
19/02/2026
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 Badu
3. District Didwana-Kuchaman
4. Offences alleged in the FIR 308(2), 87, 127(4), 70(1) of
the BNS-2023 and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)w)(ii),
3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:19:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9349] (2 of 6) [CRLAS-274/2026]
5. Offences added, if any 64(2)(m) of the BNS-2023
6. Date of passing of impugned 15.01.2026
order
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 submits that the FIR was
lodged on 17.09.2025 in connection with an incident alleged to
have been occurred on 13.08.2025. In the present case, the
appellant is aged about 22 years and the prosecutrix is aged 19
years. Initially a missing person report was submitted by the
mother of the prosecutrix. The statement of prosecutrix was
recorded on 05.09.2025 in connection with the missing person
report, wherein she stated that her date of birth is 14.10.2006
and she was staying at her maternal grand parents' home and had
some quarrel with her mother on telephone due to which she left
home on 13.08.2025 without informing anyone. She went to
Ajmer, then to Bijwada, where she stayed for some time. After her
anger became over and her mother was settled down, she came
to Bijwada bus stand where police came and took her back to
home. In her statement she further stated that she went alone
and no offence or overt act was committed upon her. She also
stated that she is a major and she understands what is right or
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:19:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9349] (3 of 6) [CRLAS-274/2026]
what is wrong and she further refused to get done her medical
examination.
3.1 After delay of about 12 days, FIR was lodged on 17.09.2025.
In the statement under Section 180 of BNSS was recorded,
wherein she deposed that the appellant along with two co-accused
committed sexual assault, however, there is no allegation of
preparing obscene video or allegation of committing sexual assault
by blackmailing the prosecutrix in the pretext of such obscene
videos.
3.2 Later statement under Section 183 of BNSS was recorded,
wherein she stated that on 13.08.2025 she received a call from
co-accused Jeevraj and later he sent his friend Deva Ram (present
appellant), who is known to her. Deva Ram came in a Bolero
accompanying with three more persons, whom she was not
knowing and they took her to Bijwada and some forceful act was
done by Deva Ram (present appellant) and Nanu Ram. It is stated
that Deva Ram also prepared an obscene video and threatened
her that if she discloses this fact then he would viral the video in
public domain. It is also stated that Deva ram thereafter forcefully
performed some marriage ceremony. In her statement she also
levelled allegation against co-accused Jeevraj stating that prior to
13.08.2025 co-accused Jeevraj also committed rape and also
prepared a video and also viral the video amongst his friends.
3.3 Learned counsel while referring to the above statements
submits that the investigation has been concluded and charge-
sheet has been filed. While concluding the investigation, the
investigating agency did not find any offence under the I.T. Act to
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:19:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9349] (4 of 6) [CRLAS-274/2026]
be made out against the present appellant. It is further submitted
that the appellant is in judicial custody since 01.10.2025 and two
co-accused were not found to be involved in the present crime and
therefore, charge-sheet was filed solely against the present
appellant.
3.4 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the statement
of one Ghanshyam Choudhary was also recorded under Section
180 of the BNSS, who is landlord of the house where petitioner
and the prosecutrix resided for 10-15 days. In his statement, he
deposed that the appellant resided for 10-15 days along with her
wife and no other person was seen to have visited them during
their stay. It is argued that this statement further indicates that
there were consensual relation between the appellant and the
prosecutrix when they resided for 10-15 days.
3.5 While referring to the charge-sheet, it is contended that the
prosecution story becomes highly doubtful considering the
statements of the prosecutrix recorded on MPR report so also
under Sections 180 & 183 of BNSS. More so, it is stated that the
allegation of committing sexual assault so also preparing obscene
video was alleged on co-accused Jeevraj, however, the same is not
found to be true in the investigation and without there being any
other material, the appellant has been connected for committing
crime in question against the prosecutrix.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes
this appeal and submits that the prosecutrix has categorically
levelled the allegation of sexual assault against the present
appellant so also the investigating agency has concluded that the
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:19:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9349] (5 of 6) [CRLAS-274/2026]
call details of all the three co-accused are not found at the place of
incident and only the call details of the present appellant are
found to be connected with the appellant in the crime in question.
Therefore, the appellant may not be enlarged on bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public
Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for
both the parties so also considering the challan papers and the
fact that the prosecutrix, at the first instance, has specifically
denied any sexual offence being committed on the alleged date of
incident; the statement of the landlord of the premises where
petitioner and the prosecutrix stayed; delay in lodging the FIR and
serious contradictions in the statements recorded under Sections
180 and 183 of BNSS wih regard to the crime in question, 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 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 15.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/
ST Cases, Merta is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-
appellant - Deva Ram S/o Bhaira Ram 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
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:19:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9349] (6 of 6) [CRLAS-274/2026]
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
43-Rmathur/-
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:19:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
