[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Maan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:33190) on 28 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:33190]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 11266/2024
Maan Singh @ Bablu Rajput S/o Jagdish Singh Rajput, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Diken, Thana Diken, Dist. Neemach, Mp.
(Lodged In Chittorgarh Jail)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shree Kant Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. R.S. Bhati, AGA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
28/07/2025
This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
(483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been
arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.111/2023, registered at
Police Station Bhensroadgarh, District Chittorgarh, for offences
under Sections 363, 366, 376(2), 376(3) and 344 of IPC; and
Sections 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner who is aged about 23 years has been falsely implicated
in a criminal case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the
impugned FIR, the challan papers so also the statements of the
victim- ‘M’ recorded before the competent criminal Court on
20.01.2025 as PW.3, learned counsel submitted that the victim-
(Downloaded on 30/07/2025 at 09:39:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33190] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11266/2024]
‘M’ voluntarily eloped with the present petitioner on 16.11.2023
and travelled with him to various places using public
transportation. Leanred counsel submitted that while victim-‘M’
was in the company of the present petitioner, she stayed with him
in the hotels situated at thickly populated areas. The victim- ‘M’
despite having ample opportunities did not disclose/report the
factum of she being forcibly abducted or subjected to sexual
assault- rape by the present petitioner.
Learned counsel submitted that at no point of time, the
petitioner had any knowledge about the victim- ‘M’ being minor.
He was always given an impression by her that she is major i.e.
more than 18 years of age. Learned counsel submitted that the
victim- ‘M’ upon being discovered by the police during the course
of investigation, has falsely roped the petitioner in a criminal case
under the pressure of her family members or for the reasons best
known to her.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in judicial custody for last more than one year and
eight months and still the statements of more than 15 cited
prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded before the
competent criminal Court.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that since the statements
of the victim-‘M’ have already been recorded before the competent
criminal Court and therefore, now there is no apprehension of the
petitioner influencing her or tampering with the evidence; the
petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; and the trial of
(Downloaded on 30/07/2025 at 09:39:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33190] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11266/2024]
the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of
bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application and submitted that in the present
case, the statements of the victim- ‘M’ recorded before the
competent criminal Court clearly indicate that she was abducted
by the petitioner and was subjected to forcible sexual assault-
rape by him. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that looking to
the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present
petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the
petitioner who is aged about 23 years is in judicial custody for last
more than one year and eight months; the statements of more
than 15 prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded before the
competent criminal Court and there is no material available on
record to prima facie indicate that the delay in trial is attributable
to the present petitioner; the statements of the victim- ‘M’
recorded before the competent Court on 20.01.2025 as PW.3
indicate that while in the company of the present petitioner, she
despite having ample opportunities, did not disclose/report the
factum of she being forcibly abducted or subjected to sexual
assault- rape by the present petitioner. This Court further finds
that the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the statements of victim- ‘M’ have already been recorded before
the competent criminal Court, therefore, now there is no
apprehension of the petitioner influencing her or tampering with
(Downloaded on 30/07/2025 at 09:39:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33190] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11266/2024]
the evidence cannot be brushed aside at this stage. Thus, without
expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court
is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the second bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-
petitioner- Maan Singh @ Bablu Rajput S/o Jagdish Singh
Rajput, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.111/2023,
registered at Police Station Bhensroadgarh, District Chittorgarh,
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
321-himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 30/07/2025 at 09:39:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link