UMMED SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-04. UMMED SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:36318] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9364/2026 CNR: RJHC010676502026 | URN: CRLMB / 20378U / 2026 Ummed Singh S/o Sh. pram Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Hemolai Jaisalsar, P. S. Nokha, District Bikaner. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Bikaner) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Mohan Singh S/o Kishan Singh, R/o Dhupanliya, Nokha, District Bikaner ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharad Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP Mr. HS Shrimali Ms. Nyati Shrimali HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 04/08/2026 This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr. P. C. ) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F. I. R. No. 111/2026, registered at Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner, for offences under Section 137(2), 127(4), 96 and 64(1) of BNS and 3/4(1) of POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a young boy aged 20 years, while the victim was 17 years and 7 months old at the time of the incident. He further submitted that, in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, no allegation of any sexual assault has been levelled against the petitioner. He further [2026:RJ-JP:36318] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9364/2026] submitted that the petitioner and the victim were friends, were connected through Instagram, and had been in communication with each other for about three years prior to the incident. Thereafter, the victim willingly eloped with the petitioner, and they travelled by train to Hyderabad, where they lived in a rented house for about 10–12 days. Subsequently, both of them were recovered from Hyderabad on 22. 03. 2026, following which the present FIR came to be registered.
He further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed solely on the basis of the supplementary statements recorded on 30. 03. 2026, which, in fact, have no evidentiary value. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29. 03. 2026, and that the trial is likely to take a considerable period of time. Therefore, it was prayed that the benefit of bail be granted to the accused-petitioner. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, investigation in the matter is complete and challan has been filed. This Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner is a young boy aged 20 years, while the victim was 17 years and 7 months old. Further, in the statements of the victim, no allegation of any sexual assault has been levelled against the petitioner.
The petitioner and the victim were friends, were connected through Instagram, and had been in communication with each other regularly. They travelled by train to Hyderabad, where they resided in a rented house for about 10– [2026:RJ-JP:36318] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9364/2026] 12 days. The evidentiary value and sanctity of the supplementary statements shall be examined by the learned trial Court during the course of trial. Considering the fact that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time and that the prosecution has not expressed any apprehension that the petitioner would abscond or flee from justice if enlarged on bail, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr. P. C. ) is allowed.
It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Ummed Singh S/o Prem Singh arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J 267/Jatin Kumar
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.