[2025:RJ-JP:18486] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 3847/2025 Ramavatar Lotan S/o Shankarlal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Lotan Dhani, Tan Gudadiya, Talab Village, Police Station Lalsot, District Dausa. (At Present Confined In District Jail Dausa). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Rajesh Chowdhary, PP Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 02/05/2025 1. The second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.53/2024 registered at Police Station Jhanpda, District Dausa (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 354D, 376(2)(n), 376D, 306 & 120B of IPC, Sections 67A & 67B of Information Technology Act and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. After completion of investigation, police filed charge- sheet in this matter. 2. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.01.2025 with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording the testimony of sister of the deceased. Now, the aforesaid witness has been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is [2025:RJ-JP:18486] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3847/2025] submitted that initially, FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354D, 376(2)(n), 376D, 306 & 120B of IPC, Sections 67A & 67B of Information Technology Act and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 however, after completion of investigation, allegation with regard to sexual exploitation was not found proved and charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 306 & 506 of IPC only on the basis of the fact that soon before death, deceased made video call to the petitioner. It was alleged that petitioner prepared obscene video/photographs of the victim however, during the course of investigation, no such video/photographs have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Counsel submits that it has been admitted by sister of the deceased in her testimony that petitioner informed her that deceased has committed suicide. Counsel submits that essential ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are not visible in the present case. It is submitted that till date, only one prosecution witness has been examined out of thirteen cited prosecution witnesses thus, there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 03.08.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that it is evident from the charge-sheet that soon before death, a video call was made by the victim to the [2025:RJ-JP:18486] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3847/2025] petitioner which shows that something was going on between them due to which she (deceased) committed suicide. 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 both the parties, material made available on record in the form of charge- sheet including statement of sister of the deceased recorded during the course of trial and trial will take considerable 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 second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Ramavatar Lotan S/o Shankarlal, 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 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 GAUTAM JAIN /33