[2026:RJ-JP:1027] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16780/2025 Arvind S/o Rajkumar @ Raju, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Raaf Police Station Kaithwara, District Deeg. At Present In District Jail, Deeg. ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 09/01/2026 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.190/2025 registered at Police Station Kaithwara, District Deeg (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 127(2), 351(2) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that according to the factual report submitted by the Investigating Agency, it appears that there were talking terms between the petitioner and victim. He argues that relationship between the petitioner and victim was consensual in nature and victim herself reached at the house of the petitioner and made sexual relations with him. He further argues that there is no medical corroboration of the allegations levelled by the victim as no sign of sexual assault was found on the body of the victim. He contends that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He further contends [2026:RJ-JP:1027] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-16780/2025] that the petitioner is in custody since 14.11.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. 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 before me in the form of case diary; absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Arvind S/o Rajkumar @ Raju shall be released on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 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. 7. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/144