[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramswaroop vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:2738) on 16 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:2738]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12283/2025
Ramswaroop S/o Ranveer, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward No 10
Hardaswali Agunabaas Police Station Rawatsar District
Hanumangarh Raj.
(Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Smt. Ranidevi W/o Kanaram, R/o Ward No. 7 Hardaswali,
Rawatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jeetendra Singh Khichi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
Mr. Ankur Limba for respondent No.2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
16/01/2026
The instant 2nd application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been
arrested in the present matter. The requisite details of the matter
are tabulated herein below:
S. No. Particulars of the case
2. Police Station Rawatsar
3. District Hanumangarh
4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 74, 76, 3(5) &
FIR 78(2) of BNS and Sections 11 &
12 of POCSO Act
5. Offences added if any Under Sections 7/8 of POCSO
Act
The 1st bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner i.e.
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5049/2025 was dismissed
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 05:58:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2738] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-12283/2025]
as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2025 with a
liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording
of statement of the prosecutrix. After rejection of 1 st bail
application, statement of prosecutrix has been recorded before the
trial Court as PW-1, hence, this 2nd bail application has been filed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public
Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
statement of prosecutrix 'S' has already been recorded as PW-1.
The prosecutrix in her statement has stated that the petitioner has
tried to commit rape with her. Learned counsel contends that the
age of the prosecutrix is also in dispute. He has produced a copy
of Birth Register of Anganbari, Centre of 5 JBD, Bal Vikas
Pariyojana, Nohar and submits that though same is not a part of
the challan but a perusal of the same reveals that date of birth of
the victim has been recorded as 16.05.2010 whereas, as per the
school certificate, her date of birth is 27.08.2011. He submits that
when her age is not determined and the documents are contrary,
the benefit must be given to the accused-petitioner. It is further
submitted that since, the prosecutrix has already been examined
as PW-1, there is no chance of tampering this witness.
Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Anoop Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2010,
decided on 3rd July 2015, observing as follows:
"15. The High Court also relied on the statement of PW-11 Dr. A.K.
Saraf who took the X-ray of the prosecutrix and on the basis of the
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 05:58:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2738] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-12283/2025]
ossification test, came to the conclusion that the age of the prosecutrix was
more than 15 years but less than 18 years. Considering this the High Court
presumed that the girl was more than 18 years of age at the time of the in-
cident. With respect to this finding of the High Court, we are of the opinion
that the High Court should have relied firstly on the documents as
stipulated under Rule 12(3)(b) and only in the absence, the medical
opinion should have been sought. We find that the Trial Court has also
dealt with this aspect of the ossification test. The Trial Court noted that the
respondent had cited Lakhan Lal Vs. State of M.P., 2004 Cri. L.J. 3962,
wherein the High Court of Madhya Pradesh said that where the doctor
having examined the prosecutrix and found her to be below 18½ years,
then keeping in mind the variation of two years, the accused should be
given the benefit of doubt. Thereafter, the Trial Court rightly held that in
the present case the ossification test is not the sole criteria for
determination of the date of birth of the prosecutrix as her certificate of
birth and also the certificate of her medical examination had been
enclosed."
Similarly, reliance has also been placed on judgment passed
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur, in Tanwar Singh
v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 1993,
decided on 01.07.2024, has held that in cases involving uncer-
tainty regarding the age of the victim and absence of corrobora-
tive evidence in sexual offences, the benefit of doubt must enure
to the accused. The relevant portion reads as under:
"25. Thus, the offence under section 376 IPC is also not found to be
proved. Therefore, the conviction of the accused appellant for the
offence under Section 376 IPC is not sustainable.
26. It is a well-settled law that in case of possibility of two views, the
view beneficial to the accused is to be accepted.
27. Consequently, the criminal appeal of accused appellant of
Tanwar Singh is allowed, and his conviction for the offences under
sections 363 and 376 IPC is set aside and he is acquitted from the
aforesaid charges. The accused appellant is on bail, his bail bonds
stand cancelled."
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 05:58:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2738] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-12283/2025]
Learned counsel submits that charges framed against the
petitioner in this case are for the offence under Sections 74, 76,
78(2) of BNS and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act; the petitioner is a 24
years old young boy, he is in judicial custody since 18.03.2025
and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to
conclude, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the
accused-petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
for the complainant have opposed the bail application and
submitted that looking to the allegation levelled against the
petitioner, he may not be enlarged on bail. However, they are not
in position to refute the fact that there is document showing two
different date of birth of the prosecutrix and the contradiction in
the age of the prosecutrix.
Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case as well as perused the material
available on record; considering the fact that there are
contradiction in the age of the prosecutrix and the benefit of doubt
must enure to the accused/petitioner; petitioner is in judicial
custody since 18.03.2025 and the trial of the case will take
sufficiently long time to conclude, without expressing any opinion
on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge
the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the 2nd bail application under Section 483 of
BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-
petitioner as named in the cause title, arrested in connection with
the above mentioned FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 05:58:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2738] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-12283/2025]
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.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
32-Ramesh/-
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 05:58:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
