[2025:RJ-JP:45666] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 14356/2025 Vishal Bairwa S/o Shri Mukesh Bairwa, Aged About 27 Years, R/o In Front Of Panchayat Simiti, Fagi, Tehsil Fagi, Police Station Fagi, District Jaipur Rural (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In Central Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anish Bhadala For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP Mr. Aditya Joshi for Mr. Vikas Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 13/11/2025 1. First bail application of present petitioner was dismissed on 15.09.2025 with direction to the trial court to record the statement of prosecutrix on priority basis preferably within a period of two months from date of receipt of copy of this order. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on 15.09.2025 the trial court has framed the charges and thereafter, fixed date for prosecution evidence as 29.09.2025 but on 29.09.2025 the prosecutrix remained absent and next date was fixed as 14.10.2025. He further submitted that on 14.10.2025 the prosecutrix was absent but her counsel was present and he undertakes to ensure that the prosecutrix will remain present on next date of hearing. He further submits that on 28.10.2025 the prosecutrix was again absent and next date fixed is 11.11.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:45666] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14356/2025] He further submits that on 11.11.2025 the prosecutrix was present but her statement could not be recorded as she was not carrying any identity card to ensure her identity. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecutrix is deliberately delaying the recording of her statement and due to deliberate delay by the prosecutrix, the petitioner has filed the bail application and he is entitled for bail. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for complainant and he submits that on 11.11.2025 the prosecutrix was present before the trial court with photocopy of Aadhar card but the trial court instead of recording her statement has fixed the next date on 21.11.2025. He further submits that on 21.11.2025 the prosecutrix will remain present for recording her statement. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties and learned public prosecutor, it appears from the order- sheets of the trial court that a warrant of arrest was issued against the prosecutrix to ensure her presence on 11.11.2025 but same was returned as unserved. The admission of learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for petitioner reflect that on 11.11.2025 the prosecutrix was present before the trial court but for want of original identity document, her statement could not be recorded. 6. The trial court has an option to log in to UIDAI website (www.uidai.gov.in) and getting OTP on mobile number of prosecutrix download/ verify the Aadhar details but learned trial court instead of adopting process of identification, delayed recording statement of prosecutrix. The trial court has to learn new ways to ensure identification. [2025:RJ-JP:45666] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14356/2025] 7. Having considered the first withdrawal application, it is appropriate to direct the trial court to record statement of prosecutrix on 21.11.2025 positively by taking up as a first case at 10:30 a.m. and the counsel for complainant is directed to ensure that on 21.11.2025 the prosecutrix remain present at 10:30 am before the trial court. No delay shall be permitted to anyone. The public prosecutor is also directed to ensure that the accused remain present through V.C. so as to ensure recording of statement of prosecutrix, on 21.11.2025. 8. In case, the prosecutrix still remained absent despite assurance by learned counsel for complainant, the trial court is directed to issue a warrant to compel her attendance on next date to be fixed within a period of one week from 21.11.2025 but in every circumstance, the statement of prosecutrix has to be recorded before 29.11.2025. 9. With aforesaid, the bail application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file after recording of statement of prosecutrix. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /83