[2025:RJ-JP:5390] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.15083/2024 1. Dharmendra S/o Prakash, Aged About 30 Years, 2. Prakash S/o Sualal, Aged About 45 Years, Both R/o Bhoyal, Police Station Kasba Thana, District Baran (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Baran). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Mr. Khizer Iqbal Khan, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 06/02/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioners. The accused- petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.96/2024, registered at Police Station Kasba Thana, District Baran, for the offence(s) under Sections 108 and 3(5) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the accused- petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that the deceased in her 'parcha bayan' has clearly stated that at the time of consuming pesticide, the accused- petitioner was not with the deceased. The accused-petitioner No.1 is husband of the deceased and the petitioner No.2 is the father- in-law of the deceased, at the time of incident they were not [2025:RJ-JP:5390] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15083/2024] present at place of occurrence. It is also contended that prima facie no offence under Sections 108 and 3/5 of BNS is made out against both the petitioners. The narration in the 'parcha bayan' that the petitioners threatened the deceased to re-marry and the petitioner No.1 also stated the same to the deceased, cannot be taken into a circumstance for abetement of suicide. The telephonic or mobile conversation took place between the petitioner No.1 and the deceased cannot be taken as instigation or abetement to suicide. It is also contended that the family members of the deceased have also entered into compromise with the petitioners and they have executed an affidavit in favour of the petitioners, therefore, considering the above facts, the bail application of the accused-petitioners may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail application. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the family members of the deceased conceded the fact that they have executed an affidavit in favour of the petitioners, therefore, if the bail application of the accused-petitioners are allowed then they have no objection. 5. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 6. Considering the fact that in the 'parcha bayan' of the deceased only incriminating circumstance shown against the accused-petitioners are that they through mobile phone threatened the deceased that the petitioner No.1 will re-marry. It is also apparent from the perusal of the 'parcha bayan' at the time of incident both the petitioners were not present at the place of occurrence. The deceased consumed pesticides resulting into her [2025:RJ-JP:5390] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15083/2024] death, therefore, considering the contents of 'parcha bayan' and without further expressing anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners- 1. Dharmendra S/o Prakash and 2. Prakash S/o Sualal, in connection with FIR No.96/2024, registered at Police Station Kasba Thana, District Baran, shall be enlarged on bail provided both of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-129