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) 2477

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR
NARESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 15764 / 2025



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:5280]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15764/2025

Naresh Kumar S/o Jepaji, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Meghwalo

Ka Was, Chitrodi, Police Station Bhinmal, District Jalore,

Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Jalore.)

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Guman Puri S/o Khem Puri, R/o Nimboda, Police Station

Bhinmal, District Jalore.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria

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

Mr. Sravan Sainee for Mr. Bharat

Singh Bhojani.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

29/01/2026

This 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.318/2025, registered at Police Station

Bhinmal, District Jalore, for offences under Sections 137(2), 64(2)

(m) & 70(2) of BNS; Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act; and Section 84

of J.J. Act.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the

material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the

present case, the complainant, i.e. the father of the victim ‘M’,

lodged an FIR at Police Station Bhinmal, District Jalore, alleging

therein that his minor daughter was missing from the house since

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 11:01:39 AM)

(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:26:19 PM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JD:5280] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-15764/2025]

11:00 a.m. on 02.08.2025. Learned counsel submitted that during

the course of investigation, when the victim was recovered, she, in

her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, stated that on

02.08.2025, co-accused persons namely Aryan and Abhishek, with

whom she had an old acquaintance through Instagram,

approached her in an unnumbered Swift car. On being asked by

them, the victim sat in the car, travelled with them to Jaipur and

stayed there. As per the statement of the victim recorded under

Section 180 BNSS, she stayed at Jaipur with co-accused Aryan,

Abhishek and Pinki at the rented premises of Pinki, whereafter she

was subjected to forcible sexual assault by co-accused Aryan and

Abhishek. Learned counsel submitted that in the said statement

recorded under Section 180 BNSS, the victim did not disclose the

name of the present petitioner.

It was further submitted that subsequently, in her statement

recorded under Section 183 BNSS, the victim alleged that co-

accused Arvind and Aryan, with whom she came into contact

through Instagram, were in possession of her two to three private

photographs, and that by threatening to circulate the said

photographs, they abducted her on 02.08.2025. It was further

alleged that thereafter she was taken to a hotel, where she was

subjected to forcible sexual assault by the present petitioner and

other co-accused persons at gunpoint.

Learned counsel contended that the petitioner has been

falsely implicated in the present case. It was argued that the

victim, who had an old acquaintance with the co-accused persons,

left her house on her own volition on 02.08.2025, travelled with

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 11:01:39 AM)

(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:26:19 PM)

##PAGE3##

[2026:RJ-JD:5280] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-15764/2025]

them to Jaipur and stayed in a hotel situated in a thickly

populated area. Despite having ample opportunity, she did not

disclose to anyone that she had been abducted or subjected to

any forcible sexual assault.

Learned counsel further submitted that there are several

inconsistencies and material variations in the version of the victim,

and her statements do not inspire confidence. According to

learned counsel, the material on record indicates that after being

recovered by the police pursuant to the missing person report, the

victim has concocted a false story to implicate the petitioner.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, aged

about 21 years, is in judicial custody; investigation against him

has already been concluded; co-accused Pinki Mehra (S.B.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12085/2025) has already be

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