[2025:RJ-JP:1705] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15407/2024 1. Mukesh S/o Bapulal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Bindli, Police Station Bhalta, District Jhalawar (Raj.) (Accused At Present Confined In Sub District Jail, Aklera, Dist. Jhalawar). 2. Bapulal S/o Motilal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Bindli, Police Station Bhalta, District Jhalawar (Raj.) (Accused At Present Confined In Sub District Jail, Aklera, Dist. Jhalawar). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anubodh Jain For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Rajveer Singh Jhala HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 10/01/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.246/2024 registered at Police Station Bhalta, District Jhalawar (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 64(1), 62, 109(1) & 123 of BNS. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 109(1), 123 & 74 of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that according to the allegations levelled in the FIR, on dated [2025:RJ-JP:1705] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15407/2024] 01.08.2024, the poisonous substance was administered by the petitioner No.1 and his mother Mangibai to the victim and thereafter victim who is wife of the petitioner No.1, got admitted in the hospital. Counsel submits that despite opportunities, victim did not disclose the fact that poisonous substance was administered by the petitioner No.1 and his mother to her. Counsel submits that after two months on dated 25.09.2024, a criminal complaint was filed by victim wherein, an exaggerated version has been narrated by her for which no evidence is available on record. Counsel submits that admittedly there is matrimonial dispute between the parties. Petitioners are in custody since 25.11.2024 and trial will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. Counsel for the complainant submits that there is serious allegations against the petitioners that not only poisonous substance was administered by the petitioner No.1 to victim but petitioner No.2 who is father-in-law of the victim has tried to commit rape with the victim. 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, as also the fact that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter; delay in lodging the FIR as well as reporting the matter to the police; period of custody, but without commenting [2025:RJ-JP:1705] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15407/2024] anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners Mukesh S/o Bapulal & Bapulal S/o Motilal 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 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 LALIT MOHAN /208