SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 1725

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR
SURENDRA KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 349 / 2026



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:5074]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 349/2026

Surendra Kumar S/o Sharwan Kumar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o

Dhirasar Charnan, P.s. Ratanagar, Churu District Churu Raj.

(Presently Lodged In Central Jail Churu)

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

2. Samundar Ram S/o Mallu Ram Bablu, Aged About 50

Years, R/o Dhirasar Charnan, P.s. Rattangar Churu,

District Churu Raj.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Shekhawat

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP

Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

28/01/2026

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.73/2025 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana

(Churu), District Churu, for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n),

and 506 of IPC; Sections 70(1), 87, 75(2) and 351(3) of BNS and

Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel submitted that although initially the FIR was

registered against the petitioner for offences under various

provisions of the BNS and the POCSO Act, the learned trial Court,

vide order dated 21.01.2026, has found only the offences under

various Sections of the BNS to be made out against the petitioner.

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 06:17:20 PM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 09:53:03 AM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JD:5074] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-349/2026]

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was

contended that the petitioner and the prosecutrix are residents of

the same locality. The petitioner ordinarily resides at Ahmedabad;

however, about six months prior to the lodging of the FIR, when

he returned to his native village, he came in contact with the

prosecutrix. It was submitted that they gradually developed liking

for each other, which culminated in a close friendship.

Learned counsel submitted that on the date of the alleged

incident, the prosecutrix voluntarily went away with him on his

motorcycle. However, they were noticed by Sawarmal and some

other villagers, who followed them, whereafter the prosecutrix

was taken back to her house by her family members. It was

argued that thereafter, possibly due to pressure exerted by family

members or for reasons best known to her, the prosecutrix has

falsely implicated the petitioner in the present criminal case.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in

judicial custody; the investigation against him has already been

completed; and the trial of the case is likely to take a considerable

period of time to conclude. On these grounds, it was prayed that

the accused-petitioner be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed

the bail application.

Having considered the rival submissions, the facts and

circumstances of the case, and upon perusal of the order dated

21.01.2026 passed by the learned trial Court, this Court prima

facie finds that the possibility of the prosecutrix being in a love

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 06:17:20 PM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 09:53:03 AM)

##PAGE3##

[2026:RJ-JD:5074] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-349/2026]

relationship with the petitioner cannot be ruled out at this stage.

The investigation further reveals that on the date of the incident,

when the prosecutrix was travelling on the motorcycle with the

petitioner, she was seen by her family members, whereafter the

petitioner was allegedly beaten by them. This Court, taking into

consideration the overall circumstances of the case, as also the

fact that the petitioner, aged about 24 years, is in judicial custody

and that the investigation has already been concluded, 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 Surendra

Kumar S/o Sharwan Kumar arrested in conne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top