HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16087/2024 Dhanvantri @ Dhannu S/o Mandata, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Chandanganv, Police Station Shri Mahaveerji District Karauli Rajasthan. (Petitioner At Present Confined In District Jail Karoli). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Tiwari, PP Mr. Brahm Singh Gurjar for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/02/2025 1. The instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.116/2024 PS Mahaveerji District Karauli for offences under Sections 80(2) & 85 BNS, 2023. After completion of investigation, police has filed chargesheet in the court concerned for the aforesaid offences. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that the deceased is the wife of the petitioner herein. Being annoyed with trivial marital issues, the deceased committed suicide. However, the family members are given it a colour of dowry death but the fact of the matter remains that during investigation, nothing wrong has come out against the petitioner (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16087/2024] indicating his guilt. As per the chargesheet, it is apparent that the marriage of both deceased and petitioner was solemnized in a very simple manner and no dowry was given at the time of marriage and thus, there is no question for harassment of the deceased for demand of dowry. During investigation, it has come out that both petitioner and deceased used to cast suspicion on each other for extra-marital affairs. The petitioner wants to go abroad whereas the deceased was not agreed to it. Being unhappy over trivial family issues, the deceased ended her life by hanging herself. Otherwise, the relations between the families of the petitioner and the deceased were so cordial that even uncle of the petitioner used to go and work in the in-law’s family of the petitioner as and when any requirement arose there. Learned counsel contends that except ligature marks on the neck, no external injury was seen on the person of deceased. The petitioner is in custody since 25.07.2024 and trial will take long time in its conclusion. Further custody would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted with learned counsel for the complainant opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that there is clear allegations against the petitioner and his family members that they harassed the deceased for demand of dowry. Considering the nature of allegations and gravity of offences, they seeks dismissal of the instant bail application. 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 parties, as also perusing the charge sheet filed in the court (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16087/2024] concerned by the investigating agency after completion of investigation; the period of custody which is more than six months and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion but without commenting anything on merits and 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-Dhanvantri @ Dhannu S/o Mandata 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. 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 /752