Allowed

Rathore Chand @ Sammi @ Aslam Mohammad S/O Angrejchand v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Oct 2025CRLMB/11015/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under BNSS Section 483 in FIR No.36/2025 involving offences under BNS Sections 64(2)(m), 303(2), 319(2), 87 and 352. Counsel argued false implication and voluntary departure of the prosecutrix. Court found no absconding risk or criminal antecedents and allowed bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted; personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to Trial Court's satisfaction, with conditions on evidence, witnesses, criminal activity, and trial attendance.

Rathore Chand @ Sammi @ Aslam Mohammad S/O Angrejchand Vs… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:40117]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11015/2025

¶4

Rathore Chand @ Sammi @ Aslam Mohammad S/o Angrejchand, Aged About 43 Years, R/o H.no. - 157, K H No. 27/20/1, Udai Vihar Nangloi, Paschim Delhi Presently Residing At Bai Police Station Chainani, District Udhampur, Jammu Kashmir. (Accused Presently Confined At District Jail, Khairthal-Tijara)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

03/10/2025

¶13

The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Rathore Chand @ Sammi @ Aslam Mohammad S/o Angrejchand, seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.36/2025 dated 04.06.2025 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, KhairthalTijara for the offence under Sections 64(2)(m), 303(2), 319(2), 87 and 352 of BNS.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant-accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The applicant does not

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:40117]

[CRLMB-11015/2025]

have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time.

¶19

Learned counsel for applicant-accused submits that the age of the present petitioner is 43 years whereas age of the prosecutrix is 39 years and both are adult persons. He further submits that prosecutrix and present petitioner are known to each other for last 4-5 years and after elopement of victim with present petitioner on 03.03.2025 a missing report was registered after three months and FIR was registered on 04.06.2025. He further submitted that during inquiry, on missing report, victim was recovered and in her statement she has made it clear that she has voluntarily left her home with present petitioner. There is no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and a false report is registered by the husband of prosecutrix, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant-accused.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties.

¶22

On 04.06.2025 complainant prosecutrix has lodged a report about incident of kidnapping and rape from 03.03.2025. After registration of a case the statement of prosecutrix were recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS. Present accused-petitioner was arrested on 04.06.2025. The age of

[2025:RJ-JP:40117]

[CRLMB-11015/2025]

(3 of 4)

prosecutrix is 39 years and present petitioner is 43 years, there is no criminal antecedents against the present petitioner.

¶27

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, the Court finds that the grounds raised in support of the bail application, coupled with other facts such as absence of any apprehension regarding absconding of applicantaccused, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses, it is justified to grant of bail.

¶28

Thus, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicantaccused Rathore Chand @ Sammi @ Aslam Mohammad S/o Angrejchand , is hereby allowed and the applicantaccused is ordered to be released on bail with condition that applicant would furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:-

¶29

(i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner.

¶30

(ii) The applicant-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law.

¶31

(iii) The applicant-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court.

¶32

(iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the applicants-accused shall be liable to be canceled.

[2025:RJ-JP:40117]

[CRLMB-11015/2025]

(4 of 4)

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail.

¶37

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶38

ashu/30

Rathore Chand @ Sammi @ Aslam Mohammad S/O Angrejchand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathore Chand @ Sammi @ Aslam Mohammad S/O Angrejchand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajasthan Table Tennis Association Vs Appellate Authority Cum Secretary

Kaluram @ Kalu @ Laxman S/O Shankar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramdeen S/O Lahore Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar S/O Shishram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vishwambhar Dayal Sharma S/O Sohanlal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Soniya Kalot W/O Devendra Kalot Vs the State of Rajasthan