[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sawai Ram Urf Sawai Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 January, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:5340]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5779/2025
Sawai Ram Urf Sawai Singh S/o Happu Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/
o Chaukidaro Ka Baas, Neembol, P/s - Jaitaran, Dist. Pali Rajasthan.
(At Present Lodged At Jail, Parbatsar)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mangilal S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village-
Chawawndiya Kalan, Jaitaran Police Station- Jaitaran, District-
Beawar (Raj.)
3. Guddi Devi D/o Sh. Mangilal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Village- Chawandiya Kalan, Police Station- Jaitaran, Districtf-
Beawar (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kamini Rathore
Ms. Sonu Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
RESERVED ON:- 27/01/2026
PRONOUNCEMENT ON:- 30/01/2026
This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been
filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with
F.I.R. No.187/2024 registered at Police Station Jaitaran, District
Beawar, for the offences under Sections 147, 365, 452, 323, 504,
506, 376(d), 376(2)(n) and 120-B of IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
prosecution case, the complainant Mangilal lodged an FIR at Police
Station Jaitaran, District Beawar, alleging inter alia that on
12.04.2024 at about 07:00 p.m., Rakesh S/o Nathu Ram, Ramesh
S/o Nathu Ram, Nathu Ram S/o Dhagla Ram, along with 12-13
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 02:48:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5340] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5779/2025]
other persons, illegally trespassed into his house armed with blunt
and sharp weapons and liquor bottles and assaulted him and his
family members. It was further alleged that the accused persons
forcibly abducted his daughter 'G', whose marriage was scheduled
to be solemnised on 24.04.2024. According to the complainant,
the accused persons intended to disrupt the marriage of his
daughter and there was apprehension that they might kill her.
After thorough investigation, the police arrested the
petitioner and other co-accused persons. Statements of the
complainant's daughter 'G' were recorded under Sections 161 and
164 Cr.P.C., wherein she stated that she was forcibly abducted by
Rakesh S/o Nathu Ram, the present petitioner, Ekam, Patel,
Manohar, Munna and 10-11 other persons. She further alleged
that she was taken to the house of co-accused Manohar at village
Nimbole, where she was subjected to forcible sexual assault by
co-accused Manohar, Patel and Rakesh S/o Nathu Ram. As per her
statement, she was forcibly kept at a secluded place in Pipar City
for about five days, and subsequently, co-accused Rakesh S/o
Nathu Ram took her to village Balara, where she was kept in
illegal confinement for more than one month.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was
submitted that, in fact, the complainant's daughter 'G' was having
a love affair with co-accused Rakesh S/o Nathu Ram and on
03.08.2023, she had eloped with him. In this regard, a missing
person report No.41/2023 was lodged, pursuant to which the
victim was recovered by the police and handed over to her family
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 02:48:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5340] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5779/2025]
members. Thus, it was submitted that the present FIR has been
lodged and allegations have been levelled against the petitioner
under pressure of the family members, who opposed to their
relationship.
Learned counsel further submitted that after the
complainant's daughter made statements against him and other
accused persons, co-accused Rakesh S/o Nathu Ram felt
humiliated and subsequently committed suicide, while in police
custody.
It was lastly submitted that the petitioner is in judicial
custody; the investigation has already been completed; the
petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been subsequently
implicated; specific allegation of forcible sexual assault has been
levelled only against co-accused persons namely Manohar, Patel
and Rakesh S/o Nathu Ram; and the trial is likely to take a
considerable time. On these grounds, prayer for grant of bail was
made.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application.
Having considered the rival submissions and the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the
petitioner has not been named in the FIR and the specific
allegation of forcible sexual assault has been levelled against co-
accused persons namely Manohar, Patel and Rakesh S/o Nathu
Ram. Prima facie, the possibility of the complainant's daughter 'G'
having been in a consensual relationship with co-accused Rakesh
S/o Nathu Ram cannot be ruled out at this stage of bail,
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 02:48:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5340] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5779/2025]
particularly in view of the earlier missing person report dated
03.08.2023, wherein it was reported that she had left the house
without informing anyone and was subsequently found with
Rakesh S/o Nathu Ram and handed over to her family members.
This Court further finds that the investigation in the matter
has already been concluded. Learned Public Prosecutor has not
shown any apprehension regarding the petitioner influencing
material prosecution witnesses or absconding, in the event he is
enlarged on bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on
the merits or demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge
the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is
allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Sawai Ram Urf
Sawai Singh S/o Happu Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R.
No.187/2024 registered at Police Station Jaitaran, District Beawar,
shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided
he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of
Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his
appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and
whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
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.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
70-divya/-
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 02:48:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
