[2026:RJ-JP:16277] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 2499/2026 Naresh S/o Shri Sadhuram, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Jhabla Ki Tan Kaant, Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur. (Raj.) (At Present Petitioner Confined At Central Jail Jaipur) ----Applicant Versus The State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 4109/2026 Abhishek @ Kannu S/o Sh. Mahesh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Kumawato Ka Mohalla, Tan Chimanpura, Station Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.). (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Applicant Versus State of Rajasthan through its P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Sharma Mr. Nikhil Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP with Mr. Mukesh Choudhary, CO, Shahpura, Jaipur Rural, present in person Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary for Mr. Vikash Kumar Jakhar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 17/04/2026 1. The instant second bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on behalf of the accused- applicants. The accused-applicants were arrested in connection with FIR No. 172/2025 registered at Police Station Shahpura (Jaipur Rural), District Jaipur Rural for the offence(s) under Sections 127(2), 137(2), 70(2), 308(2), and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023, Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, Section 66E of the [2026:RJ-JP:16277] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2499/2026] Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants has submitted that the first bail applications preferred by the applicants were dismissed by this Court on merits vide a detailed order dated 27.11.2025. It is submitted that there is a material change in circumstances since the said rejection, as the minor victim, during her testimony recorded before the learned Trial Court on 29.01.2026, has not supported the prosecution’s story and has turned hostile. It is further submitted that the applicants have falsely been implicated in the present matter, that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay, and that no incriminating electronic evidence has been recovered during the course of investigation. 3. The Investigating Officer has marked his presence before the Court and apprised the Court regarding the evidence collected in the charge-sheet. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the instant second bail applications. It is submitted that there is no substantial material change in circumstances to warrant interference at this stage. Refuting the defense’s reliance on the hostile testimony, the Investigating Officer submits that even during the adjudication of the first bail applications, specific apprehensions were recorded regarding the probability of the applicants threatening the victim. It is contended that the victim has turned hostile solely due to extreme pressure and coercion exerted by the applicants to enter into a compromise. It is lastly [2026:RJ-JP:16277] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2499/2026] submitted that the matter pertains to a heinous offence where gang-rape has been committed upon the minor victim by the accused persons. 5. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, upon an assiduous scanning of the material available on record, considering the extreme gravity of the offences, and taking note of the fact that the allegations in the instant matter pertain to heinous offences under the POCSO Act as well as the SC/ST Act; that the date of birth of the victim in question is 16.09.2010; that the victim in question is a minor girl, aged about 15 years; that there are specific allegations on record regarding the applicants pressurizing and threatening the victim to compromise the matter, which prima facie explains her hostile testimony; that the matter pertains to a heinous offence of gang- rape, and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to allow the second bail applications of the accused-applicants. 6. Accordingly, the instant second bail applications filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 are dismissed. 7. It is made clear that the previous bail rejection order dated 27.11.2025 passed by this Court shall be treated as part and parcel of the present order. 8. A copy of the present order be placed in the connected application. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/s-153-154