[2025:RJ-JP:2418] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13462/2024 Sonu Suman S/o Harishankar, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Phalaudi Village, Police Station Rawanjana Dunagar, Sawai Madhopur. (At Present District Jail, District Sawai Madhopur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashindra Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Teeka Ram Meena HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 17/01/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS., on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.152/2024 registered at Police Station Rawanjana Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 77, 332(b), 351(2), 351(3) & 64(2)(m) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that petitioner & victim was in a consensual relationship which is evident from the statement of victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS (Section 164 Cr.P.C.). He submits that as per charge-sheet, at the time of alleged incident, victim was aged about 18 years 3 months & petitioner was aged about 20 years. They were in contact since long through mobile phone. Petitioner is in custody [2025:RJ-JP:2418] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-13462/2024] since 30.08.2024. Charge-sheet has been filed & trial of the case will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. They submit that obscene photographs/videos of the victim have been recovered from the mobile phone of the petitioner. 4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, more particularly the fact that obscene photographs/videos of the victim have been recovered from the mobile phone of the petitioner, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 5. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /99