Case Law
Subject : Criminal Law - Bail Application
JODHPUR: The High Court of Rajasthan has granted bail to a man arrested under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), noting the existence of counter-FIRs lodged by both parties and the likelihood of a prolonged trial. The case stems from a complex family dispute involving a broken engagement under the “vkVk lkVk” (Aata Saata) tradition.
Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit, presiding over the single-judge bench, allowed the bail application filed by Ramesh Kumar, who was taken into custody on January 8, 2025.
The petitioner, Ramesh Kumar, was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 08/2025, registered at Police Station Chitalwana, District Sanchore, for offences under Sections 64(1), 74, 87, and 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The case involves a convoluted history between the petitioner's and the prosecutrix's families. Both Ramesh Kumar and the prosecutrix were reportedly engaged to be married. This engagement was part of a larger family arrangement known as “vkVk lkVk” (Aata Saata), a reciprocal marriage custom, where the petitioner's niece was also engaged to the prosecutrix's brother.
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Upadhayay, argued that his client was falsely implicated. He submitted that the dispute began after the petitioner's niece, who was engaged to the prosecutrix's brother, was allegedly sexually assaulted, leading to the registration of FIR No. 133/2024 on September 9, 2024.
This incident created a conflict over the continuation of the engagements. The petitioner's counsel contended that Ramesh Kumar was subsequently called by the prosecutrix and her father under the pretext of resolving the matter. Instead, he was allegedly beaten and forced to sign certain documents. Following this, the petitioner lodged his own FIR against them on January 8, 2025.
The defense emphasized that the petitioner has been in custody since January 8, 2025, the investigation is complete with the challan (chargesheet) already filed, and the trial is expected to take a considerable amount of time.
The learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. H.S. Jodha, vehemently opposed the bail application. He argued against granting relief by highlighting that there were two prior criminal cases pending against the petitioner, Ramesh Kumar.
After considering the rival submissions and the material on record, the High Court decided to grant bail. Justice Rajpurohit did not comment on the merits of the case but based his decision on two key factors:
In its order, the court stated:
"Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case; considering the records presented before this Court, that counter FIRs has been lodged by the parties in this case and the trial of the case will sufficiently long time, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail."
Consequently, Ramesh Kumar was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, subject to his appearance before the trial court on all hearing dates.
#Bail #RajasthanHighCourt #BNS
MP HC Directs Magistrate Probe and Police Affidavits on Alleged Illegal Detention in Cross-State Arrest: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
30 Apr 2026
Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Film Leak
30 Apr 2026
Pendency of EP Against One Judgment Debtor No Bar to Proceed Against Guarantor: Andhra Pradesh High Court
30 Apr 2026
PIL Dismissed with ₹25K Costs for Concealing Credentials & Pending Criminal Cases: Allahabad High Court
30 Apr 2026
Supreme Court Orders Action Against Noida Bar Strikes
30 Apr 2026
No Sane Person De-Boards Running Train: Gujarat HC Upholds Rs 8 Lakh Compensation under Section 124A Railways Act
30 Apr 2026
Failure to Frame Specific Issues Under Section 13 HMA Leads to 'Ballpark Assessment': Patna High Court Remands Divorce Case
30 Apr 2026
Physical Assault and Threats Creating Psychological Fear Attract Section 8 Goa Children's Act: Bombay HC at Goa Refuses FIR Quashing
30 Apr 2026
Habeas Corpus Inapplicable to Child Custody Disputes Needing Detailed Welfare Inquiry: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Age Restrictions under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) Surrogacy Act Not Retrospective for Pre-2022 Couples: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.