The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to a 19-year-old accused in a sexual offence case under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, emphasizing that improbable facts, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the petitioner’s youth weigh heavily in favor of interim liberty, even without adjudicating the merits of the case. This order reinforces the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly where the prosecution’s version raises serious credibility concerns.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sanwla Khan S/o Mathar Khan, aged 19 years, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 04/2026 registered at Police Station Bakhasar, District Barmer, for alleged offences under Sections 64(1) and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). The allegations pertain to a sexual offence involving a prosecutrix aged approximately 33 years. The petitioner claims he was falsely implicated and that the incident arose from consensual relations between the two parties.
Key Facts
- The alleged incident occurred on 03.01.2026 at an open location near a RO plant, adjacent to a masjid.
- The FIR was registered on 06.01.2026, three days after the alleged incident, with no explanation provided for the delay.
- The prosecutrix, a mature woman, allegedly did not raise any alarm despite the presence of people near the masjid at the time of the incident.
- According to witness statements in the charge sheet, the prosecutrix herself visited the masjid, inquired about the petitioner, after which the petitioner left briefly and returned.
- The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 08.01.2026.
- The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed.
- The petitioner is a minor in legal terms under Indian law, being only 19 years of age.
Procedural History
- 03.01.2026: Alleged incident occurred.
- 06.01.2026: FIR No. 04/2026 registered at Police Station Bakhasar.
- 08.01.2026: Petitioner arrested and placed in judicial custody.
- 15.05.2026: Bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
- 15.05.2026: Hearing conducted before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- The relationship between the petitioner and prosecutrix was consensual.
- The prosecutrix herself initiated contact and called the petitioner.
- The delay in lodging the FIR is unexplained and undermines the credibility of the complaint.
- The alleged incident occurring in an open area near a masjid with bystanders present is implausible, especially given the prosecutrix’s age and maturity.
- No protest or outcry was reported despite the location being public and populated.
- The petitioner has no history of criminal conduct and is unlikely to flee.
For the Respondent/State
- The prosecution opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the charges under Sections 64(1) and 308(2) of BNS.
- No specific grounds were advanced to rebut the petitioner’s claims regarding the improbability of the incident or the delay.
- The Public Prosecutor did not demonstrate any risk of tampering with evidence or witness intimidation.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of BNSS, requesting release on personal bond and sureties, with conditions for appearance before the trial court.
The Legal Issue
Can bail be granted under Section 483 of BNSS in a sexual offence case where the prosecution’s version contains material inconsistencies, an unexplained delay in FIR registration, and implausible factual assertions, without prejudging the merits?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the principle that bail is the norm and custody the exception, particularly where the allegations are inherently improbable. She cited State of Rajasthan v. Balchand and State of U.P. v. Chhotu Ram to argue that courts must examine the plausibility of the prosecution’s narrative at the bail stage. She emphasized that the prosecutrix’s conduct - visiting the masjid, inquiring about the petitioner, and failing to raise alarm in a public space - undermines the claim of non-consent. The delay of three days without explanation further weakens the case. The petitioner’s youth and lack of prior record were highlighted as factors favoring liberty.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the grounds that the offences under Sections 64(1) and 308(2) of BNS are serious and non-bailable. However, no specific evidence was adduced to counter the petitioner’s factual assertions regarding the location, delay, or conduct of the prosecutrix. The prosecution did not demonstrate any apprehension of the petitioner fleeing justice or tampering with evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a careful review of the factual matrix, noting that the alleged incident occurred in an open area near a masjid where people were present, yet no alarm was raised by the prosecutrix, a mature woman. The Court observed that the version of events, as reflected in the charge sheet, suggests the prosecutrix initiated contact and was present at the masjid before the alleged incident. The three-day delay in lodging the FIR was deemed unexplained and fatal to the prosecution’s credibility.
"The incident is said to be of an open place wherein RO plant has been installed and nearby there is a masjid where as per the version of the prosecutrix herself people were sitting but she is not raised any alarm. Further the FIR has been lodged after delay of 3 days."
The Court emphasized that while it was not expressing any opinion on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the petitioner, the combination of the improbable circumstances, the unexplained delay, and the petitioner’s age warranted the grant of bail. The Court noted that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet filed, and there was no indication that the petitioner would abscond or obstruct justice. The Court reiterated that the purpose of bail is to ensure the accused’s presence at trial, not to punish prior to conviction.
The Verdict
The bail application under Section 483 of BNSS was allowed. The petitioner, Sanwla Khan S/o Mathar Khan, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. He must appear before the trial court on every hearing date and whenever called upon until the conclusion of the trial. The order is subject to the condition that he is not wanted in any other case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay in FIR Undermines Prosecution’s Credibility
- Practitioners must aggressively challenge the credibility of prosecution narratives where FIRs are delayed without explanation, especially in sexual offence cases.
- Courts are increasingly willing to treat unexplained delays as material factors favoring bail, even in non-bailable offences.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to justify delays; silence or vague explanations will not suffice.
Improbable Circumstances Warrant Bail Consideration
- When the alleged incident occurs in a public or semi-public space with potential witnesses, and no outcry is recorded, courts may view the prosecution’s version as inherently implausible.
- This creates a strong ground for bail applications under Section 483 BNSS, even where charges are serious.
- Defence counsel should systematically document and highlight inconsistencies in location, timing, and witness behavior.
Youth and Lack of Criminal Record Are Decisive
- The petitioner’s age of 19 years was treated as a mitigating factor, reinforcing that juveniles and young adults are entitled to greater liberty at the pre-trial stage.
- Courts are less likely to deny bail on the basis of gravity of offence alone when the accused is young, first-time, and the allegations are questionable.
- This aligns with the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar doctrine that arrest and custody must be the exception, not the rule.
