Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sachin Alias Sonu vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:14749) on 1 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:14749]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12066/2025
Sachin Alias Sonu S/o Shri Praveen Kumar, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of Gangasinghpur Bas, Bhadra. Presently Village
Nethrana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh Rajasthan.
(Presently Lodged At District Jail, Hanumangarh.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Devi Lal S/o Purna Ram, R/o Nethrana, Police
Stationgogameri, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Mewara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
01/04/2026
1. Present bail application has been filed under Section 483
BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-applicant, who was arrested on
24.03.2025 and has been in judicial custody since then, in
connection with FIR No. 63/2025 registered at Police Station
Gogameri, District Hanumangarh, for offences punishable under
Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m), 87 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), as well as Sections 4(1), 5(i) and 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012,
and Section 84 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015.
2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that, in
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 06:40:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 08:49:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14749] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-12066/2025]
fact, the victim was in contact with applicant and remained in
continuous communication with him through Instagram. It is
further submitted that this fact has been specifically admitted by
the victim in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183
of BNSS.
2.1 Learned counsel further submits that victim had
accompanied the applicant voluntarily and stayed with him at
Bhadra for one day and thereafter in Haryana for several days,
without raising any objection at any point of time. It is contended
that the FIR came to be lodged only after her return to home,
wherein allegations under the POCSO Act have been levelled
against the accused-applicant.
2.2 It was further contended that although the victim has been
treated as a minor, it is evident from the order dated 28.08.2025,
whereby the bail application of applicant was rejected, that in the
SR Register the date of birth of the victim is recorded
inconsistently, being mentioned in words as “1.04.2000”, whereas
in figures it is recorded as “01.04.2007”. Despite this apparent
discrepancy, the Investigating Agency has proceeded to charge
the applicant for offences punishable under the POCSO Act.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application and submitted that the prosecutrix is
a minor and was forcibly taken away by applicant. It is, therefore,
contended that the present case is not a fit one for grant of bail to
the accused-applicant.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 06:40:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 08:49:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14749] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-12066/2025]
5. This Court finds that it has been specifically admitted by
victim in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of
BNSS that she have had prior acquaintance with applicant, and
the material on record further indicates that she remained in his
company for several days, stayed with him in Bhadra and
thereafter in Haryana without raising any objection or complaint.
Such conduct, prima facie, reflects a degree of voluntariness in
her actions and suggests the existence of consensual association.
5.1 The record further reveals that the age of prosecutrix has
been determined solely on the basis of a school certificate,
wherein her date of birth is recorded as “01.04.2007”. However, it
has been noted in order dated 28.08.2025 that there exists a
discrepancy in the date of birth as recorded in words and in
figures. Such inconsistency in the age of the prosecutrix can
conclusively be determined only during the course of trial upon
appreciation of evidence.
5.2 Further, the medical report of the victim does not
conclusively determine her age, however, it records that no
external injuries, scratch marks, or blood stains were found on her
body at the time of examination. The relevant portion of the said
medical report is reproduced herein below:
“No any external injury, abrasion, scratch mark, blood stain
seen at the time of examination”
5.3 This Court while taking into consideration above-mentioned
observations and the fact that challan has already been filed, and
that conclusion of the trial is going to take a considerable time,
coupled with the fact that accused-applicant is in custody since
24.03.2025 and no useful purpose would be served by his
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 06:40:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 08:49:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14749] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-12066/2025]
continued incarceration, is of the opinion that instant bail
application deserves to be allowed.
6. This Hon’ble High Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
Bail Application No. 12516/2025; Rafiq v State of
Rajasthan & Anr. held that discrepancy in record with respect to
the age of the victim must, at the stage of bail, enure to the
benefit of the accused. The relevant paragraph is reproduced
herein below:
“Applying the settled legal principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahadeo (supra) and Anoop Singh
(supra), and by a co-ordinate bench of this Court at Jaipur,
in Tanwar Singh (supra) and considering the arguments
advanced at bar this Court finds that there exist a serious
dispute regarding the age of the prosecutrix. The marksheet
from class Ist to class VIIth consistently reflect the same
date of birth i.e. 26/04/2008, which prima facie supports
the prosecution contentions while the secondary
(matriculation) marksheet reflects the date of birth as
01/01/2007, therefore, this court is of the view that
such a discrepancy in the record with respect to the
age of the victim must, at this stage, enure to the
benefit of the accused. Considering further that the
petitioner has been in custody since the date of his arrest,
and the trial is likely to take a considerable time to
conclude, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, deems it just and proper to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.”
6.1 Moreover, this Hon’ble High Court in Sachin v. State of
Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine Raj 472 granted bail to accused-
petitioner in case where variation in age existed as per settled
practice with respect to Medical Ossification Report. The relevant
paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
“4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further
submits that in I the present case, it is evident from the
Medical Ossification Report that the victim’s is between 16-
18 years. He argued that there exist chances of variation of
two years in Medical Ossification Report, as per settled
practice/norms. Hence, the age of victim comes above 18
years. He argued that victim herself stated during the(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 06:40:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 08:49:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14749] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-12066/2025]course of trial as well as investigation that on the call of the
petitioner, she went with the petitioner and resided with
him. She did not make any opposition. Petitioner is behind
the Bar since 07.07.2025. Charge-sheet has already been
filed. The trial of the case may take considerable time,
hence the bail application of the petitioner may be allowed.
6. On consideration of the rival submission and material
available on record and deliberating all the facts and
circumstances of the case and without expressing any
opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I am inclined
to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner.”
7. Therefore, this Court without expressing any opinion on the
merits/demerits of the case, deems it appropriate to enlarge
accused-applicant on bail. Consequently, bail application filed
under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that accused-
applicant Sachin @ Sonu S/o Shri Praveen Kumar shall be
released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.
50,000/- (Rupees : Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.
25,000/- (Rupees : Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the
satisfaction of learned Trial Court, with the condition to appear
before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called
upon to do so. Needless to say, the above observations are limited
to the justifiable disposal of the present bail application and shall
not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of
the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally
deciding the case.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
6-Yagya/-
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 06:40:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 08:49:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
