[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5493) on 30 January, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:5493]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 966/2026
Rakesh Kumar S/o Bhup Ram, Aged About 22 Years, Chak 3 Np
Dhani Ps Muklawa District Sriganganagar Raj. (At Present
Lodged In Central Jail Sri Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Tejpal Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Chak 2 NP Dhani PS
Muklawa District Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
Mr. Amit Kumar for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
30/01/2026
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.114/2025 registered at Police Station Muklawa, District
Sri Ganganagar, for the offences under Sections 332(b) of BNS;
Sections 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act in alternate Sections 64(2)(m) of
BNS and Sections 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
prosecution, on 05.09.2025 the complainant submitted a written
report before the SHO of Police Station Muklawa, Sri Ganaganagar
alleging inter alia that Rakesh used to visit his house. Finding his
minor daughter alone, Rakesh would come and threaten her and
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 10:33:57 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5493] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-966/2026]
has subjected her to forcible sexual assault/rape. He had
subjected her to forcible sexual assault/rape on multiple occasion
on a false pretext of marriage. His minor daughter (victim 'J') is
now five months pregnant. On the basis of aforesaid report, an
FIR was lodged at Police Station Muklawa against the present
petitioner for the offences under Sections 64(2)(m) and 332(b)
and Sections 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
Act and the investigation was commenced.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned
counsel vehemently submitted that it was only when victim 'J'
became pregnant, the petitioner has been roped in a false criminal
case.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that the statements of the
victim 'J' have already been recorded before the learned trial
court, therefore, now there is no apprehension of the petitioner
influencing her, in case he is enlarged on bail. Learned counsel
submitted that DNA report dated 30.11.2025 for determination of
biological father of the baby resulted in negative with the DNA of
the accused petitioner. Therefore, as per the DNA report the
petitioner is not the biological father of the baby born to the victim
'J'.
5. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in judicial custody since long; he does not have any
criminal antecedents; investigation in the matter has already been
concluded; challan has been filed; and the trial of the case will
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 10:33:57 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5493] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-966/2026]
take sufficiently long time to conclude, therefore, the benefit of
bail may be granted to the accused petitioner.
6. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that looking to the
seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present
petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material
available on record.
8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, after perusing the case file including
the DNA report dated 30.11.2025 and the fact that the petitioner,
who is aged about 22 years is in judicial custody since long and he
does not have any criminal antecedents, coupled with the fact that
learned Public Prosecutor was not in a position to show any
apprehension of the petitioner influencing the remaining material
prosecution witnesses of the case or tampering with evidence 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.
9. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is
allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Rakesh Kumar
S/o Bhup Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.114/2025
registered at Police Station Muklawa, District Sri Ganganagar, 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
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 10:33:57 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5493] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-966/2026]
appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and
whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
10. 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
87-Divya/-
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 10:33:57 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
