[2025:RJ-JP:7168] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14937/2024 Palindra @ Palendra Singh S/o Dharamsingh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Town Pahadi, Police Station Pahadi, District Deeg, (Rajasthan) (Presently Lodged In Sub Jail Deeg, District Bharatpur) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni, Adv., with Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP and Mr. Rajeev Surana, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Umang Jain, Adv. & Ms. Muskan Verma, Adv., for complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 13/02/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.258/2024 registered at Police Station Pahadi, District Deeg for the offences punishable under Sections 80(2) and 85 of BNS, 2023. Later on, Police has filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 80(2), 85 and 316(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that as per prosecution case, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of [2025:RJ-JP:7168] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-14937/2024] dowry and therefore, she committed suicide. He contends that as a matter of fact, the deceased was severely suffering from depression (anxiety disorder). Marriage of the petitioner with the deceased was solemnized on 10.06.2023 and within one month from the marriage, the petitioner himself took her to a psychiatric for her treatment, which is evident from the statement of Dr. Pradeep Singh recorded under Section 180 BNSS, 2023 as per which, the deceased was suffering from anxiety disorder, dissociative disorder (hysteria) and therefore, she was even advised to get admitted in the hospital but she refused to do so. He further contends that as per opinion of the Medical Board, who conducted postmortem, except ligature mark on the neck of the dead body, no external injury was seen on the dead body. It is also submitted that as per the PMR, red spots/staining (hypostasis) were found on the dependent position of body which occurred due to accumulation of fluid or blood in the lower parts of the body under the influence of gravity in cases of death. In this respect, he draws attention of the Court towards statement of Dr. Kartik Agarwal recorded under Section 180 BNSS. He further submits that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time. He further argues that the petitioner is in custody since 09.08.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is clear allegation against the petitioner in the [2025:RJ-JP:7168] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-14937/2024] statements of the family members of the deceased that the petitioner was harassed and humiliated soon before her death on account of demand of dowry. It is also argued that several marks of injuries were seen on the dead body at the time of incident. The deceased died within a short span of one year and three months of her marriage, and, therefore, bail should not be granted to the petitioner. 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 petitioner as also the opinion of the medical board, who conducted postmortem that there was no external injury found on the dead body except ligature mark; statements of Dr. Kartik Agarwal, who was one of the member of the Medical Board and Dr.Pradeep Singh, from whom, she was taking treatment; charge-sheet has been filed; period of custody and trial will take time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Palindra @ Palendra Singh S/o Dharamsingh 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 [2025:RJ-JP:7168] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-14937/2024] transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. 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 MADAN/115