[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chhagna vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6895) on 6 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6895]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 82/2026
Chhagna S/o Shri Rana Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of
Ladiniyo Ka Bera, Balesar. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail,
Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aziz Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek, PP
Mr. Yuvraj Parmar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
06/02/2026
1. This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 483 of BNSS (old Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) in connection
with FIR No. 181/2025 dated 21.11.2025, Police Station Balesar,
District Jodhpur Rural for the offences under Sections 308(2),
140(3) 64(1) and 64(2)(m) of BNS, 2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following
submissions:-
2.1. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and
false allegations have been levelled against him. The petitioner
and prosecutrix as a matter of fact were having very cordial
relation prior to the filing of the FIR. While referring to the
statement which were recorded on 12.11.2025 before the police
authorities, he submits that the prosecutrix was in consensual
relation with the petitioner. In the said statement it was stated
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:07:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6895] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-82/2026]
that petitioner and prosecutrix solemnized marriage through Arya
Samaj, Jodhpur on 04.11.2025 and, thereafter, she, alongwith the
present petitioner, went to the office of Commissioner of Police for
document verification. He submits that subsequent thereto she
stayed with the petitioner in a hotel and thereafter they went to
Pali on bike. He also submits that they further travelled to Udaipur
and returned to Jodhpur and then stayed in Jodhpur from
08.11.2025 to 12.11.2025. On 12.11.2025, they visited the Office
of Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur, for protection from where
they were taken to police Station Balesar. In her statement, she
clearly stated that she went with the present petitioner on her
own free will and no force or coercion was used against her. While
recording the statement she expressed her willingness to go with
her uncle Gopa Ram. It was further stated by her before the police
that she did not wish to file any complaint or report against the
present petitioner.
2.2 Petitioner, thereafter, filed a Habeas Corpus Petition before
this Court being D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No.491/2025, which
came to be decided on 09.12.2025. The Division Bench, while
disposing of the said Habeas Corpus Petition has reproduced the
statement given by the prosecutrix on 12.11.2025 and considering
her wish she was allowed to go with her uncle. He also submits
that soon after the disposal of the Habeas Corpus Petition, the
present FIR came to be lodged on 21.11.2025. The statement of
prosecutrix under Section 180, BNSS, was recorded on
24.11.2025 wherein she changed her stand and levelled serious
allegations of committing rape and sexual assault upon the
present petitioner. Subsequent thereto, statement under Section
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:07:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6895] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-82/2026]
183, BNSS was recorded on 25.11.2025 wherein also she alleged
such offence.
2.3. Though, prosecutrix has alleged commission of offence in her
statements made under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, however, the
said statements lose their gravity in view of the earlier statement
recorded before police on 12.11.2025 so also her admission of
those statements in the D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition
No.491/2025. The petitioner is in judicial custody since
14.12.2025 and the trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore,
he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel
appearing on behalf of complainant vehemently oppose this bail
application and submit that in view of the specific allegation made
against the present petitioner in the statements of prosecutrix
recorded under Sections 180 and 183, BNSS, the petitioner may
not be enlarged on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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
so also the fact that prosecutrix voluntarily went to the police
station along with the present petitioner where her statements
were recorded wherein she specifically contended that she and
petitioner solemnized marriage on 04.11.2025 and subsequently,
they travelled at various places and there is no allegation of any
sexual assault or committing alleged crime so also considering her
stand before the Hon'ble Division Bench in D.B. Habeas Corpus
Petition No.491/2025 and so also considering the fact that even in
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:07:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6895] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-82/2026]
the statements under Section 180 and 183, BNSS, the allegation
of committing rape is prior to 12.11.2025, which is contrary to the
earlier statement, in totality of circumstances and in the
considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be
served by keeping the petitioner 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 petitioner
deserves to be accepted.
6. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of
BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner- Chhagna S/o Shri
Rana Ram, shall be released on bail in connection with the
aforesaid FIR; provided he executes personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/-
each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his 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
46-AbhishekK/-
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:07:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
