Rajasthan High Court Rejects Third Bail Plea of Police Constable in Bharatpur Murder Case, Relies on Call Records Showing Criminal Conspiracy
Rajasthan High Court Rejects Third Bail Plea of Police Constable in Bharatpur Murder Case, Relies on Call Records Showing Criminal Conspiracy Case Title: Ravindra Singh S/o Rambharosi v. State of RajasthanCourt: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at JaipurCitation: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 10667/2025Date of Judgment: December, 2025 The present judgment arises from the third bail application moved by the accused-petitioner Ravindra Singh under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No. 218/2023 registered at Police Station Halena, District Bharatpur, for serious offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was heard and decided by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Praveer Bhatnagar, with the Court delivering a reasoned and complete judgment declining bail. The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated in the case and that no direct or substantive evidence existed to establish his role in the alleged conspiracy leading to the murder of Kuldeep Singh and the grievous injuries caused to Vijaypal. It was argued that his earlier bail application had been rejected with liberty to renew the prayer after recording the statement of the injured witness, and that subsequent developments, including material witnesses turning hostile, justified reconsideration. Emphasis was also placed on the petitioner’s long incarceration and his status as a police constable. The State and the complainant strongly opposed the bail plea, drawing the Court’s attention to the background of the case and the alleged motive. It was argued that the petitioner is the real brother of Kripal Singh, whose murder had preceded the present incident, and that the killing of Kuldeep Singh was an act of revenge carried out pursuant to a criminal conspiracy. The prosecution relied heavily on call detail records collected during investigation, which indicated sustained and repeated contact between the petitioner and the principal assailants before and after the incident. It was further pointed out that the bail application of a similarly placed co-accused, Aaditya, had already been dismissed by the High Court, and that the petitioner’s case stood on identical footing. Upon a careful perusal of the material on record, the High Court examined the call detail analysis placed by the investigating agency. The judgment records that the petitioner had made and received a significant number of calls with key co-accused over an extended period, clearly suggesting continuous communication. The Court took note of the fact that these call records formed part of an elaborate investigation and prima facie supported the prosecution’s allegation of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. The Court found that such evidence could not be lightly brushed aside at the stage of considering bail, particularly in a case involving allegations of murder motivated by revenge. The High Court also placed weight on the principle of parity, observing that the case of the petitioner was not distinguishable from that of the co-accused whose bail had already been rejected. The Court held that, in the absence of any new or exceptional circumstance, there was no justification to take a different view in the petitioner’s third bail application. The seriousness of the offence, the nature of allegations, and the prima facie material indicating a conspiratorial role weighed decisively against the grant of bail. Concluding its analysis, the Court held that, at the present stage, it was not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the third bail application was dismissed. The judgment underscores the Rajasthan High Court’s consistent approach that in cases involving grave offences like murder coupled with conspiracy, sustained call-based linkage between accused persons can constitute strong prima facie material sufficient to deny bail, especially when earlier bail pleas have already been rejected on merits. Read complete order here
Age Determination in POCSO Matters | Law, Procedure & Case Laws Explained
Age Determination in POCSO Matters | Law, Procedure & Case Laws Explained Age determination is the foundation of every case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The moment a complaint is registered alleging a sexual offence against a “child”, the entire machinery of the POCSO Act comes into motion. However, whether the Act applies at all depends on one single fact — the age of the prosecutrix on the date of the alleged incident. In many cases before trial courts and High Courts, it has been seen that disputes regarding age are not merely technical issues. They often decide whether the accused faces stringent punishment under a special law or whether the case falls back into the domain of the Indian Penal Code. Courts across India, including the Rajasthan High Court, have repeatedly held that age determination in POCSO matters must be done with extreme care, strict adherence to law, and proper appreciation of evidence. This article explains the legal principles, procedure, evidentiary value, and common disputes involved in age determination under POCSO, in a clear and practical manner. Why Age Determination Is Central to POCSO Cases Under Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act, a “child” means any person below the age of 18 years. If the prosecutrix is below 18 on the date of the alleged offence, consent becomes legally irrelevant, and strict liability provisions apply. Even a consensual relationship can attract harsh punishment. On the other hand, if the prosecutrix is found to be 18 years or above, the entire prosecution under POCSO collapses. The case may then survive, if at all, only under the IPC, subject to proof of force, coercion, or other ingredients. Because of these consequences, age determination is not a formality but a substantive judicial exercise. Legal Framework Governing Age Determination in POCSO Matters The POCSO Act itself does not prescribe a detailed mechanism for age determination. Therefore, courts rely upon: • Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015• Rules framed under the JJ Act• Settled judicial precedents of the Supreme Court and High Courts Section 94 of the JJ Act lays down a clear hierarchy of documents for age determination, which courts have consistently applied to POCSO cases as well. The Hierarchy of Evidence for Age Determination The law is settled that not all age-related documents carry equal weight. Courts must follow a strict order of preference. First Preference: School Records The most reliable document for age determination is the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, or the matriculation certificate issued by a recognised board. Courts have held that school records prepared at the time of admission, long before the dispute arose, carry high evidentiary value. However, the prosecution must prove: • The school is recognised• The entry was made in the ordinary course of business• The record is supported by oral evidence of school authorities If the school record appears manipulated, obtained later, or unsupported by admission registers, courts are cautious in relying upon it. Second Preference: Birth Certificate from Local Authority If school records are unavailable, the next best evidence is a birth certificate issued by a municipal corporation, panchayat, or registrar of births and deaths. Such certificates are considered reliable if they are contemporaneous and issued on the basis of timely registration. Late registrations without proper explanation often invite judicial suspicion. Third Preference: Medical Age Determination (Ossification Test) Only when documentary evidence is unavailable or unreliable does the court resort to medical age determination. Medical opinion, including ossification tests and radiological examination, is not conclusive. It provides an approximate age range, usually with a margin of error of two years on either side. Courts consistently hold that medical opinion cannot override reliable documentary evidence, but it becomes relevant where documents are missing, doubtful, or contradictory. Role of Medical Examination and Its Limitations In many POCSO cases, medical boards opine that the prosecutrix is “between 17 to 19 years” or “about 18 years”. Such opinions are inherently imprecise. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that when medical opinion gives a range, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused, particularly in criminal trials where liberty is at stake. Therefore, where medical age determination places the prosecutrix close to 18 years, courts often extend the margin in favour of the accused unless documentary proof conclusively establishes minority. Common Disputes in Age Determination Cases In practical litigation, age determination disputes often arise due to: • Contradictory school records• Multiple dates of birth in Aadhaar, school, and municipal records• Admission in school at a later age without proper documentation• Birth registration done years after birth• Family disputes influencing age declaration• Romantic relationships later converted into criminal cases Courts are mindful of these realities and increasingly scrutinise age-related evidence with caution. Aadhaar Card and Age Proof: Not Conclusive A common misconception is that an Aadhaar card conclusively proves age. Courts have clarified that Aadhaar is not a primary document for age determination under criminal law. Aadhaar data is often self-declared or based on secondary documents. Therefore, while it can be a supporting piece of evidence, it cannot override school or birth records prepared contemporaneously. Date of Incident Is the Deciding Factor Another settled principle is that age must be determined as on the date of the alleged incident, not the date of FIR, medical examination, or statement under Section 164 CrPC. Even a difference of a few months can be decisive. Courts have repeatedly emphasised that prosecution must establish minority on the precise date of occurrence. Burden of Proof in Age Determination In POCSO matters, the initial burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the prosecutrix was below 18 years. Once the prosecution produces prima facie evidence, the defence has the right to challenge its authenticity, credibility, and legality through cross-examination and contrary material. Age determination is ultimately a question of fact, to be decided on evidence, not assumptions or emotional considerations. Judicial Approach: Substance Over Labels