[2025:RJ-JP:10610] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1183/2025 Madanlal S/o Sh. Surjaram, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Mandawa, Police Station Mandawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail Jhunjhunu). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Mahala, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/03/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.189/2024 registered at Police Station Mandawa, District Jhunjhunu for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023. Later on, Police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(f), 75(2) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that false allegations have been levelled on account of matrimonial dispute. He further submits that petitioner- father-in-law of the complainant, who is aged about 72 years. He argues that there is no medical corroboration of the allegation levelled by the victim against the petitioner. He [2025:RJ-JP:10610] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1183/2025] contends that charge-sheet has already been filed, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He further contends that the petitioner is in custody since 02.12.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of commission of sexual assault upon the victim. He further submits that complainant/victim of this case has been duly informed about hearing of this bail application. 4. Despite the name of the counsel for the complainant appearing in the cause list, no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant even in the second round. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, as also looking to the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet; absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 7. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Madanlal S/o Sh. Surjaram shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two [2025:RJ-JP:10610] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1183/2025] sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/S-367