Kaluram @ Kalu Sharma S/O Ramprasad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Oct 2025CRLMB/13649/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted in POCSO case (Sections 5(l)/6, 11/12) and BNS offences (Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1), 87, 137(2)) considering delay in FIR (9 months), no antecedents, young accused (24), custody since 17.06.2025, and protracted trial. Personal bond Rs.50,000/- and two sureties Rs.25,000/- each. Observations not to influence trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each ¶¶26

Kaluram @ Kalu Sharma S/O Ramprasad Sharma… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:42404]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application No. 13649/2025

¶4

Kaluram @ Kalu Sharma S/o Ramprasad Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Kundikheda, Police Station Bhawanimandi, District Jhalawar (Raj.) (Accused Presently Confined At District Jail Jhalawar).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Bhim Singh Meena
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP
		Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP with
		Mr. Gaurav Gupta,Asst. G.A.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

16/10/2025

¶13

This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.277/2025 registered at Police Station Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar for offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1), 70(2) & 137(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, ‘BNS’), 2023 and 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1), 87 & 137(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 5(l)/6 & 11/12 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶14

The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated

[2025:RJ-JP:42404]

[CRLMB-13649/2025]

(2 of 4)

25.09.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of victim. Now, victim has been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred.

¶19

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that it appears from the testimony of the victim that alleged first incident of rape took place in the month of August, 2024 thereafter, victim was abducted by the petitioner and his friend in the month of November, 2024 and they took her to Ahmedabad. Counsel submits that admittedly, during this period, no offence of rape was committed upon the victim. Counsel submits that victim came back from Ahmedabad with her parents in the month of November, 2024 and thereafter, she was residing with them. Counsel submits that alleged incident was disclosed by the victim to her parents on 13.06.2025 thereafter, impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioner. Counsel submits that alleged incident was not disclosed by the victim to the police till registration of the impugned FIR. Counsel contends that it has been admitted by the victim that impugned FIR was registered on the same day when an argument took place between mother of the victim and petitioner. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is a young boy, aged about 24 years and he is in custody since 17.06.2025. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

[2025:RJ-JP:42404]

[CRLMB-13649/2025]

(3 of 4)

Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that consent of the victim, if any, is immaterial as at the time of alleged incident, victim was below 18 years. He further submits that victim/complainant of this case has duly been informed about hearing of this bail application.

¶24

Despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the victim/complainant to oppose the prayer for bail. 6. I have considered the contentions.

¶25

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 on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of the victim, as also considering the fact that FIR has been lodged after a delay of about nine months, so also the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application.

¶26

This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Kaluram @ Kalu Sharma S/o Ramprasad Sharma, shall be released on bail provided, he shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:42404]

[CRLMB-13649/2025]

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.

¶31

The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶32

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶33

CHARU SONI /52

Kaluram @ Kalu Sharma S/O Ramprasad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaluram @ Kalu Sharma S/O Ramprasad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abbushama S/O Mohammad Amanullah Vs State of Rajasthan

Srajan Tamang S/O Mang Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Master Vidyaram Mahavidhyalaya Vs National Council for Teacher Education

Vijaypal S/O Shree Ganeshram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Manish Suman S/O Kailashchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Suhail Khan@Golu S/O Firoz Khan Vs State of Rajasthan