Dismissed¶26

Nasim B W/O Maksud v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Jan 2026/500/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan HC Jaipur; CRLMB 500/2026; second bail application; S. 483 BNSS; human trafficking; minor prosecutrix aged 17; BNS Ss. 137(2), 87, 96, 143(4), 127(2), 61(2); POCSO Ss. 11/12; BNSS Ss. 180, 183; FIR No. 118/2025 PS Pidawa Jhalawar; PW-1 'X' statement; attempted sale Rs. 50,000; Kota; Mandalgarh; bail dismissed; Justice Praveer Bhatnagar; order dated 22/01/2026.

What did the court decide?

It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case; considering the statement of PW-1 'X', the Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail, and the second bail application is dismissed. ¶25

Nasim B W/O Maksud Vs State of Rajasthan — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:2886]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No.500/2026

¶4

Nasim B W/o Maksud, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Sultanpura Pidawa Police Station Pidawa District Jhalawar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

22/01/2026

¶13

The instant second bail application has been filed under section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accusedpetitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 118/2025 registered at Police Station Pidawa, District Jhalawar for the offences under sections 137(2) of BNS.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated under Sections 137(2), 87, 96, 143(4), 127(2) and 61(2) of BNS and Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act. It is argued that prosecutrix PW-1 'X' has been examined by the Trial Court and in her examination-in-chief she has stated that the petitioner left her at Kota Station. This version of the prosecutrix itself shows that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged crime. It is also contended that prosecutrix herself left her parental home with other co-accused Rajiya and

[2026:RJ-JP:2886]

[CRLMB-500/2026]

(2 of 3)

Pappu and the age of the prosecutrix is also 17 years and she has also admitted that she got married with a person residing in Village Sumel, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, the second bail application of petitioner may be allowed.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the second bail application and submitted the factual report along with the intimation report served upon the prosecutrix/complainant, same are taken on record. No one has turned up on behalf of the complainant after due service of intimation regarding filing of the present bail application.

¶20

It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that it is a case of human trafficking and prosecutrix in her statement rendered under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS has categorically stated that co-accused Rajiya and Pappu took her from Pirawa to Kota where she was kept in a hotel and Pappu and Rajiya were talking to some persons and attempted to sell her in Rs.50,000/-. She has also stated that Pappu's mother i.e., accused-petitioner Nasima B also came there and she took her to Mandalgarh and kept her there for a day and thereafter they came from Mandalgarh to Kota where petitioner left her and Police recovered the victim. The prosecutrix in her deposition given before the Trial Court has supported the prosecution story. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application of petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the intimation report of the complainant and prosecutrix. No one has turned up on behalf of the complainant/prosecutrix.

¶22

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶23

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-500/2026]

¶24

[2026:RJ-JP:2886]

¶25

It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case. Considering the statement of PW-1 'X', this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant second bail application of the accused-petitioner is hereby dismissed.

¶27

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶28

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-4

Nasim B W/O Maksud v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasim B W/O Maksud v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Bijarniya S/O Jagdish Bijarniya Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganesh S/O Chiranji Vs State of Rajasthan

Baghchand S/O Nathulal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Anish Son of Mubba Vs State of Rajasthan

Jilsad S/O Ibri Vs State of Rajasthan

Lekhraj S/O Bajranglal Vs State of Rajasthan