[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Kathat vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9780) on 24 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:9780]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1247/2026
Suresh Kathat S/o Shri Deva Kathat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Village Aliji Ki Dhani, Birantiya Khurd, Police Station Barr, District
Beawar (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Beawar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awar Dan Ujjwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh Prajapat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
24/02/2026
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 15.11.2025
3. Concerned Police Station Bar
4. District Beawar
5. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 64(2)(m),
308(2) and 331(4) of
BNS, 2023
6. Offences added, if any --
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the case and false allegations have
been levelled against him. He further submits that the petitioner is
aged about 31 years, whereas the prosecutrix is a married woman
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:59:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9780] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1247/2026]
aged about 35 years. It is contended that the relationship between
the petitioner and the prosecutrix was consensual.
2.1 In support of this submission, learned counsel has referred
to the messages exchanged between the petitioner and the
prosecutrix as well as certain bank transactions between them. It
is further submitted that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were
earlier in a consensual relationship, however, due to some
misunderstanding and family pressure, the prosecutrix lodged the
present FIR.
2.2 It is also contended that even after lodging of the FIR, there
was communication between the prosecutrix and the petitioner,
wherein she allegedly narrated the circumstances under which she
was compelled to lodge the FIR and indicated that the same had
been lodged under pressure.
2.3 The petitioner is in judicial custody since 16.01.2026 and the
trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, he deserves to be
enlarged on bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes this bail
application and submits that the prosecutrix has specifically
asserted the allegation of sexual assault against the present
petitioner in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183
of the BNSS.
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 case diary, more
particularly the exchange of messages between the prosecutrix
and the present petitioner prior to and even after lodging of the
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:59:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9780] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1247/2026]
FIR so also that the prosecutrix is a 35 year-old married woman,
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- Suresh Kathat
S/o Shri Deva Kathat 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
10-Ashutosh/-
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:59:50 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
