[2026:RJ-JD:7279]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1767/2026 Udai Lal S/o Keshu Lal, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Samel (Fusariya) Police Station Kheroda, District Udaipur. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor

2. Champa W/o Bagdi Lal Meena, Resident Of Phusariya, Police Station Kheroda, Udaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Mankad Mr. Mithalesh Mankad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

10/02/2026

1. This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS (old Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) in connection with FIR No. 163/2025 dated 14.10.2025, Police Station Kheroda, Udaipur, for the offences under Sections 64(1) of the BNS, 2023.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and false allegations have been levelled against him. He further submits that the incident alleged in the FIR is of 20.07.2024 and FIR was lodged after more than one year i.e. on 14.10.2025. The alleged offence is committed against a married lady who is aged about 39 years. While referring to the FIR so also the statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, he submits that though it is alleged that a sexual assault was committed by the present petitioner, however, the delay caused in lodging the FIR is very significant, moreso considering the fact that the incident was narrated by the victim’s son to his father and as per the statement, victim’s husband came back after a month from the date of incident, however, despite that, no complaint was lodged for almost a year. As a matter of fact, some quarrel took place between the petitioner and the victim and their family members, therefore, just to settle that score, the allegation of sexual assault has been alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 28.11.2025 and the trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes this bail application and submits that the allegation against the present petitioner is of committing heinous crime and looking to the statement of the prosecutrix, he may not be enlarged on bail.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

5. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of this case and after perusing the challan papers so also the fact that there is delay of more than one year in lodging the FIR and prima facie considering the fact that the FIR was lodged soon after the quarrel took place between the petitioner and the victim and their family members, in the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period as the trial will take sufficiently long time. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the applicant deserves to be accepted.

6. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner- Udai Lal S/o Keshu Lal, shall be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR; provided he executes personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

7. 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.

(SUNIL BENIWAL),J

28-ajayS/-