[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash Verma vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5739) on 2 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:5739]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15624/2025
Sandeep Singh S/o Hari Singh Rajput, Aged About 21 Years,
Resident Of Anthada, Police Thana Raithal, District Bundi.
(Presently Lodged At District Jail Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Manju S/o Radheshyam, R/o Ward No. 13 Rps Colony
Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15627/2025
Prakash Verma S/o Bardilal, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of
Sabarsaya, Police Thana Leema Chouhan, District Rajgarh
Madhya Pradesh. Presently Lodged At District Jail Chittorgarh
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Manju S/o Radheshyam, R/o Ward No. 13 Rps Colony
Rawotbhata Dist. Chittorgarh
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JVS Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP
Mr. BPS Inda
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
02/02/2026
1. These applications for bail have been filed by the petitioners
under Section 483 of BNSS (old Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) in
connection with FIR No. 10/2025 dated 18.01.2025, Police Station
Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh for the offence under Section
(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 05:45:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5739] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15624/2025]
137(2) of the BNS. After investigation, offences under Section
16/17 of POCSO Act, Sections 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, 3(5) of
the BNS and Section 84 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act were added.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and false
allegations have been levelled against them. He further submits
that petitioners Sandeep and Prakash are in judicial custody since
07.10.2025 and 13.11.2025 respectively. The petitioners were
arrested in connection with FIR which was lodged on 18.01.2025.
While referring to the statements as recorded under Section 183
BNSS, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no
allegation in the statement of both the victims which could make
out a case under the POCSO Act against the petitioners. The
principal allegation, as per the statement recorded under Section
183 BNSS, is against only Bhupendra. The trial will take
sufficiently long time, therefore, they deserve to be enlarged on
bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the complainant vehemently oppose this bail application. However,
they are not in a position to refute the fact that the statement
recorded under Section 183 BNSS, the allegation is against
Bhupendra and there is no allegation of committing forceful
assault against the present petitioners.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public
Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
5. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of this case and after perusing the challan papers
(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 05:45:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5739] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15624/2025]
so also the statement of both the victims recorded under Section
183 BNSS, which prima facie do not indicate the alleged offence
has been committed by the petitioners, in the considered opinion
of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the
petitioners behind the bars for an indefinite period as the trial will
take sufficiently long time. Thus, without expressing any opinion
on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that
the bail application filed by the petitioners deserves to be
accepted.
6. Accordingly, the bail applications filed under Section 483 of
BNSS are allowed. It is ordered that petitioners- Sandeep Singh
S/o Hari Singh Rajput and Prakash Verma S/o Bardilal Verma,
shall be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR;
provided they execute personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
each with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to
the satisfaction of learned trial Court for their appearance before
that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called
upon to do so till the completion of the trial.
7. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(SUNIL BENIWAL ),J
44-45--Jatin/-
(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 05:45:16 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
