[2026:RJ-JD:9074]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14414/2025 Prabhu Lal S/o Shri Vinda Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Puragarh Fala Lewa Police Station Palasiya Dist. Udaipur Rajasthan (Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.J. Gupta.

Ms. Kamini Chouhan.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

Conclusion of Arguments &

Reserved on : 16/02/2026 Pronounced on : 20/02/2026

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. 5/2023 dated 18.08.2023, Police Station Badgaon, District Udaipur for the offences under Sections 392, 365, 376-D and 450 of the IPC. After filing challan, offence under Section 366 of the IPC, has been added.

2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 27.08.2023 in connection with FIR No.5/2023, which was lodged on 18.08.2023 for the alleged incident, which is said to have occurred on 17.08.2023.

2.1 While arguing the bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix is a married woman, aged about 21 years, and has one child. Earlier, she was married to one Bhagwati Lal, and the said marriage was dissolved in a panchayat. An agreement was also executed, wherein the ex-husband of the prosecutrix specifically stated that she was having an illicit relationship with the present petitioner. The FIR has been lodged only on account of a monetary dispute amounting to Rs. 50,000/-, which was allegedly not returned to the petitioner by the prosecutrix. He further submitted that the co-accused, Shantilal, has already been enlarged on bail by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.01.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15834/2023.

2.2 While referring to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded as PW/1, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she narrated the incident in a manner which clearly indicates that she travelled through a public way and admitted that police personnel were also present on the way. She further stated that she was taken to the roof by the petitioner, where the alleged offence of rape took place. Further, she had not asked for help from anyone on the way or when she reached the house where she was taken on roof and these facts clearly indicate that there was no forceful act which in any manner could indicate commission of the crime in question. It was also argued that the prosecutrix herself stated that she was not confined in any place and was independent to move around. He further argued that there was no injury reported nor her clothes were sent for forensic examination. Therefore, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this bail application and submitted that the FIR was lodged soon after the incident and the prosecutrix has maintained her allegation in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and before the court. He also argued that the petitioner cannot be granted bail on account of the fact that co-accused has been released on bail as the allegations levelled upon the co- accused are different. There was no allegation of committing rape / sexual assault on the co-accused Shantilal and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co-accused Shantilal.

3.1 While countering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the fact of not raising any voice when the prosecutrix was travelling through public way, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecutrix has specifically stated that she was threatened with knife and was forcefully taken from the