Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Nirmal vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 August, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:34130]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 5341/2025
Nirmal S/o Ghasi Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Seewa, Ps
Ladnu, District Deedwana Kuchaman (Rajasthan) (Presently
Lodged In Central Jail Nagaur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Deendayal S/o Hadmanram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Seewa Ladnu, District Deedwana Kuchaman
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Omprakash Joshi
Mr. Karan Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. Dilip for respondent No.2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
06/08/2025
This second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS (439
Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.33/2024, registered at Police Station
Ladnu, District Deedwana-Kuchaman, for offences under Sections
363, 366-A, 344 IPC, and 11/12 of POCSO Act.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the
material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner, who is aged about 23 years is in judicial custody since
13.04.2024. Learned counsel submitted that as per the
prosecution, on 28.01.2024 father of the victim submitted a
written report at Police Station Ladnu alleging inter alia that his
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 04:32:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34130] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-5341/2025]
minor daughter has been forcibly taken away by the petitioner in
his pickup vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-21-GD-1196.
Learned counsel submitted that during course of the
investigation, when the victim was discovered by the investigating
agency, she in her statements recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. on 06.04.2024 stated that she was in love with the present
petitioner and they used to talk with each other on mobile phones.
She further stated that on 28.01.2024, she accompanied the
present petitioner with an intention to marry him. Thereupon, she
travelled with him to various places such as Agra, Indore, Raipur
etc. using public transportation and both of them stayed in rented
premises. She further stated that for earning livelihood, the
petitioner started working as Labourer at a dairy.
Learned counsel submitted that the victim in her statements
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. narrated a different version
than her earlier statements and stated that on 28.01.2024, she
was kidnapped by Babulal, Jairam and the present petitioner. The
victim in her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
levelled allegation of forcible sexual assault against Jairam,
Babulal and one Rustam but has not levelled any allegation of
rape against the present petitioner.
Learned counsel contended that police after making thorough
investigation in the matter filed chargesheet only against the
petitioner whereas, the investigation against Rustam, Babulal,
Jairam etc. was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel submitted that the victim, during her
examination-in-chief conducted before the competent criminal
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 04:32:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34130] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-5341/2025]
Court on 02.12.2024 as PW.1, has again changed her version and
now she has levelled accusation against the petitioner of
committing forcible sexual assault- rape upon her. Learned counsel
submitted that cross-examination of the victim before the
competent criminal Court could not take place in the matter as
after examination-in-chief of the victim, learned trial Court in
exercise of the powers under Section 358 BNSS has proceeded
against the accused Rustam, Babulal, Roshni and Jairam who
according to the learned trial Court prima facie appears to be
guilty of the offence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is an innocent young boy. He submitted that even
otherwise, since the chief examination of victim has already been
conducted before the competent criminal Court, now there is no
apprehension of the petitioner influencing her or tampering with
the evidence.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in
judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long
time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-
petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned
counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail
application.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case so also after perusing the statements of
the victim recorded under various Sections of BNSS/Cr.P.C., this
Court prima facie finds that at the time of alleged incident, the
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 04:32:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34130] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-5341/2025]
petitioner was 21 years old; the petitioner and the victim were
known to each other and were in constant touch through mobile
phone; the police during the course of investigation on 03.04.2024
when discovered the victim, she in her statements denied the
factum of she being forcibly abducted or subjected to forcible
sexual assault- rape by the petitioner. Further, she initially refused
to undergo medical examination. This Court further prima facie
finds that chief examination of the victim has already been
conducted before the learned trial Court and in view of the fact
that learned trial Court in exercise of powers under Section 358
BNSS has proceeded against the accused Rustam, Babulal, Roshni
and Jairam, the trial against the petitioner is not likely to be
concluded in the near future. This Court also finds that the
petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and the learned
Public Prosecutor has not shown any apprehension of the
petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the
case or tampering with the evidence or fleeing away from justice,
in case, he is enlarged on bail. 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- Nirmal S/o Ghasi Ram, arrested in connection with
F.I.R. No.33/2024, registered at Police Station Ladnu, District
Deedwana-Kuchaman, 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
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 04:32:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34130] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-5341/2025]
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
301-/-Tikam
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 04:32:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)