NANA LAL ALIAS NANKA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-10. NANA LAL ALIAS NANKA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:37947] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1077/2026 CNR: RJHC010070972026 | URN: CRLMB / 2383U / 2026 Nana Lal Alias Nanka S/o Girja Shankar, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Parsola , Parsola Police , District Pratapgarh. raj. Presently Lodged At District Jail Pratapgarh ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Indra Meena W/o Ramiya Meena, Resident Of Bada Charpotiya, Parsola , Police Thana Parsola , District Pratapgarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijendra Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL Order 10/08/2026 1. This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS (old Section 439 of Cr. P. C. ). The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S. No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 118/2025 2. Date of lodging FIR 18. 08. 2025 3. Concerned Police Station Parsola 4.
District Pratapgarh 5. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 65(1), 127(4) and Sections 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(w) (i) of SC/ST Act 6. Offences added, if any Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and false allegations have [2026:RJ-JP:37947] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1077/2026] been levelled against him. He further submits that a perusal of the statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS so also the statement of victim recorded before Court as PW-9 reflects that there is a serious contradiction with regard to the place where the incident is alleged to have occurred. There is a gross delay in lodging of the FIR as it was lodged on 18. 08. 2025 for the incident which is alleged to have occurred in November 2024. As a matter of fact, there is no prima facie evidence indicating that victim was minor at the time of incident therefore, no offence under the POCSO Act is made out.
The petitioner is in judicial custody since 27. 08. 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 petitioner is aged about 57 years whereasas per the student Admission Register procured during investigation, the age of the victim on the date of incident was approximately 16 years. He further submits that victim has specifically levelled allegations of sexual assault against the present petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 183 so also in the Court statement. He also submits that as a matter of fact on account of such sexual assault the victim got pregnant which is apparent from the medical report. Based on the above facts, petitioner is not entitled to 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 [2026:RJ-JP:37947] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1077/2026] so also considering the fact that the petitioner is aged about 57 years whereas the age of the victim was around 16 years on the date of incident and on account of alleged sexual assault committed by the petitioner, the victim got pregnant, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. (SUNIL BENIWAL),J 12/Abhishek kushwaha
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.