Dismissed¶32

Naresh S/O Shri Sadhuram v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Apr 2026CRLMB/2499/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application; Section 483 BNSS 2023; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; Justice Sameer Jain; FIR No. 172/2025 PS Shahpura Jaipur Rural; offences under BNS 2023 Ss.127(2),137(2),70(2),308(2),351(2); POCSO Ss.5/6; IT Act S.66E; SC/ST Act Ss.3(1)(w)(ii),3(2)(v); first bail rejected 27.11.2025; victim turned hostile on 29.01.2026; hostile testimony explained prima facie by pressure and threats to compel compromise; minor victim aged 15 (DOB 16.09.2010); gangrape; gravity of offence; second bail dismissed; no relief granted; connected bail application No. 4109/2026; applicants Naresh and Abhishek @ Kannu; counsel Nikhil Sharma and Nikhil Saini for applicants; PP Manvendra Singh Shekhawat.

What did the court decide?

None; bail refused and the second bail applications were dismissed. ¶32

Naresh S/O Shri Sadhuram Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; bail refused and the second bail applications were dismissed.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-applicants should be granted second bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on the ground of a material change in circumstances, namely the minor victim turning hostile during her trial testimony, despite their first bail applications having been dismissed on merits on 27.11.2025.

¶24

Court's answer

The Court held that the specific allegations on record that the applicants pressurized and threatened the victim to compromise the matter prima facie explain her hostile testimony; this weighed against treating the hostility as a change favourable to bail.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The Court took into account the extreme gravity of the offences, the heinous nature of the allegations under the POCSO Act and SC/ST Act, the victim's date of birth (16.09.2010) and minority (aged about 15 years), and that the matter pertains to gangrape, in declining bail.

¶31

Key takeaways

Without commenting on the merits/demerits of the case, the Court was not inclined to allow the second bail applications and accordingly dismissed them.ratio¶32
The previous bail rejection order dated 27.11.2025 passed by this Court is to be treated as part and parcel of the present order.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), Sameer Jain, J.: Second bail applications under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 by Naresh and Abhishek @ Kannu, accused in FIR No. 172/2025, Police Station Shahpura (Jaipur Rural), for offences 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 Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, dismissed. Their first bail applications had been rejected on merits on 27.11.2025. Applicants pleaded a material change in circumstances: the minor victim (date of birth 16.09.2010, aged about 15 years) turned hostile when examined before the Trial Court on 29.01.2026. The State contended the hostility resulted from pressure, threats and coercion by the applicants to force a compromise, in a heinous gangrape matter. Held: specific allegations on record that the applicants pressurized and threatened the victim to compromise the matter prima facie explain her hostile testimony; considering the extreme gravity of the heinous offences under the POCSO Act and SC/ST Act, the Court was not inclined to allow the applications and dismissed them without commenting on merits. The earlier rejection order dated 27.11.2025 is treated as part and parcel of the present order; a copy was directed to be placed in the connected application (No. 4109/2026).

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:16277]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 2499/2026

¶4

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)

¶5

----Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 4109/2026

¶11

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)

¶12

----Applicant

¶13

Versus

¶14

State of Rajasthan through its P.P.

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

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

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order

¶18

17/04/2026

¶19

The instant second bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on behalf of the accusedapplicants. 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]

[CRLMB-2499/2026]

(2 of 3)

Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

¶24

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.

¶25

The Investigating Officer has marked his presence before the Court and apprised the Court regarding the evidence collected in the charge-sheet.

¶26

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]

[CRLMB-2499/2026]

(3 of 3)

submitted that the matter pertains to a heinous offence where gang-rape has been committed upon the minor victim by the accused persons.

¶31

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 gangrape, 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.

¶32

Accordingly, the instant second bail applications filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 are dismissed.

¶33

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.

¶34

A copy of the present order be placed in the connected application.

¶35

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶36

JKP/s-153-154

Naresh S/O Shri Sadhuram v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh S/O Shri Sadhuram v. the 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

Shriram S/O Tilok Ram Vs Chairman, Nagar Parishad Jhunjhunu

Managing Director Vs Sandhya Khatri, Wife of Shri Krishna Gopal Khatri

Mamta Daranga D/O Chunni Lal Daranga Vs Rajasthan University of Health Science (Ruhs)

Deepak Kochya S/O Shri Ram Karan Vs State of Rajasthan

Mannu @ Veer Singh S/O Shri Gabdu Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar Soni S/O Shri Chunni Lal Soni Vs Mausam Singh S/O Shri. Ajayab Singh