[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babulal Keer vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:5400]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15681/2025
Babulal Keer S/o Ramkrishan Keer, Aged About 22 Years,
Resident Of Dhanop Police Station Phuliakalan District Bhilwara
(Presently Lodged At Bhilwara Jail)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Kamal Kishore Malu, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of
Dhanop Police Station Phuliakalan District Bhilwara
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.R.S. Sodha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
Reserved on:- 29/01/2026
Pronounced on:- 31/01/2026
1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been
filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with
F.I.R. No.0072/2025 registered at Police Station Phulia Kala,
District Bhilwara, for the offences under Section 376(3) IPC and
Sections 3/4(2) and 5(j)(2)/6 of POCSO Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
prosecution, on 01.04.2025, the victim 'A', while undergoing
treatment at Charbhuja Hospital, Vijay Nagar, gave a parcha
bayan to SHO of Police Station Phulia Kala stating inter alia that
on the intervening night of 21-22.05.2024, her cousin brother-
Anuj subjected her to forcible sexual assault/rape. On 31.03.2025,
when she felt severe abdominal pain, she was taken to Charbhuja
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:23:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5400] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-15681/2025]
Private Hospital where she was admitted for treatment. During the
course of treatment, she gave birth to a son. It was also stated
that she became pregnant when her cousin brother-Anuj
subjected her to forcible sexual assault/rape in May/June, 2024.
On the basis of parcha bayan of victim 'A', an FIR No.0072/2025
was lodged at Police Station Phulia Kala against Anuj for offences
under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 376 of IPC and
investigation was commenced. The present petitioner was
apprehended after the allegation of forcible sexual assault has
been levelled against him by the victim 'A' in her statements
recorded under Section 183 BNSS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing
attention of the Court towards the statements of the victim 'A'
recorded under Sections 180 & 183 BNSS, learned counsel
submitted that there are material contradictions in her statements
as she sometimes attributes the wrongdoing to her cousin brother,
sometimes to an unnamed boy and sometimes speaks of the
present petitioner. Therefore, it was submitted that the victim's
statements are totally unreliable.
4. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the victim 'A' in
her court statements has admitted the factum of she being in
relationship with the petitioner and when their relationship
surfaced and she became pregnant, she has roped the petitioner
in a false criminal case. It was also admitted in her court
statements that the petitioner has not ever subjected her to
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:23:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5400] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-15681/2025]
forcible sexual assault/rape and these criminal proceedings have
been initiated by her only under undue pressure from her parents.
5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the statements of
victim have already been recorded before the competent criminal
court, therefore now there is no apprehension of the petitioner
influencing her or fleeing away from justice in case, he is enlarged
on bail. He also submitted that the petitioner, who was only aged
about 20 years at the time of alleged incident, is in judicial
custody since long; investigation in the matter has already been
concluded and the trial of will take sufficiently long time to
conclude. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted
that as per the FSL report, the present petitioner is the biological
father of the boy born to the victim 'A'. Therefore, it cannot be said
that he has played no role in commission of the alleged offence. It
was also submitted that looking to the seriousness of the
allegations levelled against the petitioner and the gravity of
offences, this bail application may be rejected straightaway.
However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the
statements of the victim 'A' have already been recorded before the
competent criminal court.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, and after perusing the material
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:23:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5400] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-15681/2025]
available on record, this Court prima facie finds that although
there are grave and serious allegations of subjecting a minor girl
to forcible sexual assault/rape, this Court cannot lose sight of the
fact that there exist material contradictions and inconsistencies in
the statements of the victim 'A' recorded at various stages of the
investigation. The victim 'A', at different points of time, has
attributed the alleged act to different persons. At times, she has
alleged the involvement of her cousin brother, namely Anuj; on
other occasions, she has referred to the involvement of an
unnamed boy; and at yet other instances, she has alleged that the
present petitioner forcibly subjected her to sexual assault/rape. At
this stage, this Court is not expected to undertake a detailed
appreciation of evidence or to record any conclusive findings on
merits. The proper appreciation of evidence and determination of
the truthfulness of the allegations shall be within the exclusive
domain of the learned Trial Court during the course of trial.
9. This Court also prima facie finds that the victim 'A' in her
cross-examination before the trial court has categorically denied
the factum that she was ever subjected to forcible sexual
assault/rape by the present petitioner at the same time she has
conversely stated that when her relationship with the present
petitioner surfaced and she became pregnant, she has roped the
petitioner in the present case under influence/pressure of her
parents.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner who is
aged about 22 years is in judicial custody since long; he does not
have any criminal antecedents; since the statements of the victim
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:23:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5400] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-15681/2025]
'A' have already been recorded before the learned trial court, now
there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing her. The
learned Public Prosecutor has also not shown any apprehension of
the petitioner influencing the remaining material prosecution
witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice, in case he is
enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/
demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
11. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is
allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Babulal Keer
S/o Ramkrishan Keer arrested in connection with F.I.R.
No.0072/2025 registered at Police Station Phulia Kala, District
Bhilwara, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other
case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and
two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned
trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every
date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion
of the trial.
12. 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.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
-TarunGoyal/-
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:23:29 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
