Medical Evidence Of Force Prevails Over Claims Of Consent: Rajasthan HC

Refusing to grant bail in a sexual assault case, the Rajasthan High Court ruled that medical reports recording multiple physical injuries and signs of force negate claims of a consensual relationship. The Court held that specific statements from the survivor coupled with corroborating medical findings preclude pre-trial release in serious offences.

In an appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, a Single Bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal considered the appellant's plea for bail in a case alleging repeated sexual exploitation and assault.

Court Observations and Directions

The High Court carefully evaluated the submissions, the material available in the challan papers, and the medical examination reports of the victim. Refusing to grant relief to the accused, the Court observed that the presence of six injuries inflicted within 1-2 days of examination provided clear indication of the use of force.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties; the facts and circumstances of the case; the challan papers and the fact that the medical report prima facie indicates commission of sexual assault as 6 injuries have been recorded and it has been opined that there are signs of use of force and considering specific allegations levelled in the statements recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage."

Background

The dispute arose out of FIR No. 014/2026 registered at Mahila Thana, Nagaur, alleging offences under Sections 64(2)(m) and 115(2) of the SC/ST Act alongside Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The FIR alleged that the appellant had been forcefully sexually exploiting the prosecutrix for two years using obscene photographs, with the last incident occurring on January 17, 2026.

The appellant contended that the relationship was entirely consensual and that he was falsely implicated after the affair was exposed. Relying on CCTV footage showing the parties voluntarily visiting a hotel, counsel argued that no force was used and highlighted that the appellant had been in custody since January 21, 2026.

Conversely, the Public Prosecutor and the complainant's counsel relied on the victim's statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS and a medical report dated January 18, 2026, which recorded six recent injuries and confirmed signs of force. Accepting the prosecution's stance, the High Court found no ground for bail and dismissed the appeal.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1199/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:37894
Case Title: Sureshnath v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Durgesh Khatri
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP; Mr. Surya Pratap Singh Rathore (for complainant)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 8908