[2025:RJ-JP:38149] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10997/2025 Premraj S/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 18 Years, Aged About 18 Years, 3 Month, R/o Babaji Wali Dhani, Thesil Ralawas, Police Station Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa. (The Accused Petitioner Is Presently Confined In Jail At Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Khandelwal, through V.C. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 18/09/2025 1. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.50/2025 registered at Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur Rural for offence punishable under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. Investigation is being conducted in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96 & 308 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, 2012. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that victim of this case has been examined during the course of trial wherein she has not supported the prosecution case and she has been declared hostile. Counsel submits that it has been [2025:RJ-JP:38149] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10997/2025] admitted by the victim in her cross-examination that on account of money dispute, this case was lodged against the petitioner. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that although, victim has been declared hostile but in examination-in-chief, she has levelled allegation against the petitioner of commission of rape. However, he fairly concedes that in her cross-examination, she has admitted the fact that on account of money dispute, impugned FIR has been lodged. He further submits that victim/complainant of this case has duly been informed about hearing of this bail application. 4. Despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the victim/complainant to oppose this bail application. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially considering the material available on record including testimony of the victim wherein it has been admitted by her that on account of money dispute, this case has been registered and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. [2025:RJ-JP:38149] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10997/2025] 7. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner – Premraj S/o Shri Jagdish shall be released on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /39