Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Anas Mohammad Alias Anas Khan vs Sate Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27312) on 17 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:27312]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5647/2025
Anas Mohammad Alias Anas Khan S/o Nyas Mohammad, Aged
About 27 Years, Resident Of Peepli Gali, Makrana Mohalla, Police
Station Sadar Kotwali, Jodhpur, Presently J.k. Nagar, Jefu Khan
Ki Koti, Police Station Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur, (Raj.).
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
Sate Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Firoz Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NeelKamal Bohra
Mr. Ramesh Devasi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
17/06/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 483 BNSS/ 439 Cr.P.C. at
the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the
matter are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 53/2025 2. Concerned Police Station Airport 3. District Jodhpur City East 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 376(2) (n), 384 of IPC 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of impugned 01.05.2025 order (Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 09:32:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:27312] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5647/2025]
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no
case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his
incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in
the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the
accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based
on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsels for the
petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and Public
Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the
present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record.
5. The crux of the FIR is that the complainant has alleged that
the accused blackmailed her, extorted money, and committed
repeated acts of rape. However, upon perusal of the material
available on record, particularly the transcription of the chats
between the complainant and the accused, it appears that the
relationship between them was consensual and affectionate in
nature. The conversation indicates that the complainant was
not under any form of coercion or duress, but was rather
voluntarily involved with the accused. It is also evident from
the chats that she had extended monetary help and given
some gold to the accused when he was in need. The accused,
in turn, has expressed his intent to return the same and has
only sought some time to do so. In view of this, the allegation
of extortion does not appear to be prima facie substantiated.
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 09:32:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27312] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5647/2025]
Similarly, considering the repeated expression of love by the
complainant herself, the claim of rape also appears to be
doubtful at this stage. This Court, upon perusal of the chat
transcripts placed on record by the learned counsel, notes
that at the relevant point in time, the complainant herself
stated “कितने घटिया आदमी से प्यार कर लिया”. This expression clearly
reflects that the relationship between the parties was
consensual and not born out of any compulsion. The tone and
content of the message indicate that the relationship
eventually turned bitter, which perhaps prompted the
complainant to lodge the present FIR. Though the nature and
gravity of the alleged offences cannot be ignored but at the
same time the defence plea can also be not ignored that in
the prevailing circumstances the FIR may have been filed as a
retaliatory action owing to a strained personal relationship
and this Court feel force. This possibility cannot be ruled out
at this stage.
6. It is a settled position of law that an accused is presumed
innocent until proven guilty. Bail is not to be withheld merely
on the apprehension that the accused may have committed
the offence. The grant of bail does not amount to acquittal,
discharge, or exoneration. It is rather a matter of judicial
discretion based on the facts of each case. Further, it is not
the case of the prosecution, the complainant, or the learned
counsel for the State that the accused has attempted to
influence the investigation, tamper with evidence, or exert
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 09:32:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27312] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5647/2025]
any kind of pressure on the complainant. There is also no
apprehension expressed regarding the likelihood of the
accused absconding. Considering the totality of the
circumstances and keeping in view the principle that bail is
the rule and jail is the exception and there is high probability
that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these
facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the
benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 483
BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner
as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided
he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with
two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court
concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called
upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
55-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 09:32:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)