[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narbda Shanker Urf Narendra vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9315) on 19 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:9315]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 389/2026
Narbda Shanker Urf Narendra S/o Madan Lal, Aged About 24
Years, Kundai Police Station Beehnder District Udaipur At Present
Geld Son Of Kishan Lal Meghwal Basni Khurd Sindhiyo Ki Vasani
Police Station Fatehnagar District Udaipur Rajasthan ( Presently
Lodged In District Jail Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Chogalal S/o Ramlal, Shani Maharaj Choraha Akola Police
Station Akola District Chittorgarh Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan
Ms. Hena Aman Siddiqui
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh Prajapat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
19/02/2026
1. This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 483 of BNSS (old Section 439 of Cr.P.C.). The requisite
details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
2. Date of lodging FIR 04.06.2025
3. Concerned Police Station Akola
4. District Chittorgarh
5. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Section 137(2)
of BNS, 2023
6. Offences added, if any 87, 64(2)(M) and
65(1) of BNS, 2023
and Sections 5(L)/6 of
the POCSO Act, 2012.
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:19:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9315] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-389/2026]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was
lodged by the father of the victim alleging that his minor daughter,
aged about 15 years, left home and he has doubt that she left the
house along with the present petitioner. The statement of victim
was recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, wherein she stated that
she developed friendship with the petitioner about three months
ago when they met in a social function and thereafter, they were
having regular telephonic conversation. She stated that when her
brother caught her talking with the present petitioner, he snatched
the mobile phone and broke it. She further stated that she
voluntarily left the home with the petitioner on the motor-cycle to
Akola and thereafter to Nathdwara and then to Surat. She stated
that they stayed in Surat for about 18-19 days as husband and
wife. Thereafter, they returned back to Udaipur from where she
was recovered by the police and she was taken to her home.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the
statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, she had narrated
the same version. However, she changed her stand while her
statement was recorded in the court as PW-3, wherein she
deposed that she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by
the petitioner when she stayed for about 17-18 days with him. Not
only this, she also changed her stand while deposing that she was
forcefully abducted and under false pretext the present petitioner
took her to Nathdwara and thereafter to Surat.
2.2 While referring to the cross-examination, she admits the fact
that in her earlier statement she has not levelled any allegation of
forceful sexual assault. Not only this, she further stated that her
parents are not against her marriage with the present petitioner
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:19:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9315] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-389/2026]
and if they would be in favour of marrying her then perhaps this
complaint would not have been filed.
2.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the
prosecutrix has flatly refused to identify the house, she was kept
in Surat before the investigating officer. He submits that the
statements as recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS and
before the trial court clearly indicate that relation between the
present petitioner and the victim was consensual and there is no
evidence of any forceful act upon the present petitioner in
committing the crime in question.
2.4 Learned counsel while referring to the statement of Chhoga
Lal (victim's father) recorded as PW-4 deposed that though it is
alleged in the FIR that victim was aged about 15 years, however,
there is no serious contradiction in version with regard to the age.
In the chief, it is stated by victim's father that the victim is aged
about 15 years and her elder brother Vipul is aged about 19 years.
2.5 While referring to the cross-examination of PW-4, it is stated
that the victim's father Chhoga Lal is claiming himself to be
married in the year 2000 and considering the fact that the elder
son is aged about 19 years, the allegation of victim being aged
about 14 years & 05 months at the time of incident becomes
highly doubtful. It is also stated that during investigation, there is
no recovery of any birth certificate so as to conclusively arrive at
the decision with regard to the age.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes
this bail application and submits that victim is aged about 15
years & a few months at the time of incident and the petitioner is
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:19:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9315] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-389/2026]
alleged to have committed heinous crime of penetrative sexual
assault.
3.1 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that consent of the
victim could not be a ground to enlarge the present petitioner on
bail as the Act do not recognize consent of a minor in a case of
sexual assault. He also contended that the victim has specifically
asserted in her statement before the court that she is a minor
aged about 15 years and she was subjected to sexual assault by
the petitioner at Nathdwara so also at Surat and therefore,
petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the parties
so also considering the challan-papers and considering the fact
that consent under the POCSO Act, when the victim is aged about
15 years, cannot be a ground for enlarging the accused-petitioner
on bail more so, when the petitioner is aged about 24 years and
victim is aged about 15 years & few months. The issue as to
whether the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged act of
penetrative sexual assault is to be decided by the trial Court.
6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
11-Rmathur/-
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:19:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
