[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manish vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:8811) on 17 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8811]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2131/2026
Manish S/o Parsingh Garasiya, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Kunda,
Police Thana Kasarwadi, District Banswara.
Accused Lodge At Dist. Jail Banswara Date Of Arrest 11.1.2026
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
17/02/2026
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.243/2025 dated 26.11.2025, Police Station
Kasarwadi, District Banswara, for the offences under Sections
64(1) BNS, 2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the case and false allegations have
been levelled upon the petitioner. The investigation has been
completed and charge-sheet has already been filed. It is
contended that the alleged incident took place on 19.11.2025,
whereas the FIR came to be lodged on 26.11.2025. Learned
counsel submits that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the
FIR, particularly when the prosecutrix herself has stated that she
returned three days after the date of the alleged abduction, i.e.,
19.11.2025.
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 06:34:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8811] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2131/2026]
2.1 It is further contended that the prosecutrix is aged about 26
years, while the petitioner is 27 years old. Learned counsel
submits that statements have been recorded under Sections 180
and 183 of the BNSS and the allegations of rape made against the
present petitioner are highly doubtful.
2.2 Referring to the statement recorded under Section 183 of the
BNSS, it is submitted that the prosecutrix stated that she was
walking along the roadside where the petitioner along with two co-
accused, namely Pankaj and Ishwar, allegedly stalked and forcibly
abducted her and took her into a truck. It is further alleged that
she was kept in the truck continuously for three days and was not
allowed to alight, nor permitted to attend to nature's call or
consume water.
2.3. As per the statement of the prosecutrix, the accused persons
stopped at fuel stations for refilling petrol/diesel during three days'
period. Despite being taken to public places, including fuel
stations, the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm or attempt to
escape, which renders the prosecution story doubtful.
2.4. On the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 180
and 183 BNSS, it is contended that the material on record
indicates that the relationship between the petitioner and the
prosecutrix was consensual.
2.5. The two other persons namely Pankaj and Ishwar, who were
allegedly involved in the abduction, have not been arraigned as
accused in the case. The petitioner is in judicial custody since
11.01.2026 and the trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore,
he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 06:34:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8811] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2131/2026]
3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes this bail
application and submits that in view of the specific statements
recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, the petitioner
may not be enlarged on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public
Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
5. Having considered the rival submissions, the facts and
circumstances of the case and on perusal of the challan papers as
well as the delay in lodging the FIR which was filed by the
prosecutrix and not by the father of the prosecutrix and
considering that the prosecutrix was allegedly taken to various
public places without any allegation of having made attempts to
free herself from the accused persons so also the presence of
other two accused persons was dis-believed by Investigating
Officer. Assertion of staying in the truck for continuous three days
without even attending nature's call and not even consuming
water prima facie indicate the relation being consensual; this
Court is of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would
be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite
period. 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-Manish S/o
Parsingh Garasiya 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
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 06:34:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8811] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2131/2026]
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
42-Ashutosh/-
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 06:34:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
