[2025:RJ-JP:31208] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7944/2025 Bacchusingh S/o Jaggiram @ Jaggeram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Sundrwali, Police Station Nagar, District Deeg. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8151/2025 Archna D/o Sugad Singh, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Village Aarsi, Police Station Nagar, District Deeg. ( At Present In Sub Jail Deeg) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh Chouhan Mr. Ved Prakash Sogarwal For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Ms. Meenakshi Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 12/08/2025 1. These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.66/2025 registered at Police Station Janoothar, District Deeg (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 111(2)(a) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya [2025:RJ-JP:31208] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7944/2025] Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submit that offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS, 2023 (Corresponding to Section 306 IPC) is not made out. It is submitted that ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are not visible in the present case. It is submitted that deceased did not leave a suicide note and mere calls between the petitioners and deceased are not enough to attract the offence under section 108 of BNS, 2023. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submit that petitioners are in custody since 11.05.2025 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. Counsel for the complainant submits that it is a case of honey trap and petitioners were extorting money from the deceased therefore, he committed suicide. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial will take considerable time in its [2025:RJ-JP:31208] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7944/2025] conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow these bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners-(1) Bacchusingh S/o Jaggiram @ Jaggeram and (2) Archna D/o Sugad Singh shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 they 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. 7. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /101-102