[2025:RJ-JP:40498] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10759/2025 Jagdish @ Goru S/o Shri Bhanwarlal, R/o Meeno Ka Moholla, Dudu, Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Sub District Jail, Sambharlake, District Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Its PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/09/2025 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.266/2022 registered at Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur Rural for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police has filed charge-sheet in this matter in the court concerned. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses so far examined before the learned trial court, nothing incriminating has come against him and no offence is made against the present applicant. The marriages of all the deceased sisters were solemnized in the year 2005 whereas the incident took place after 17 years of marriage. [2025:RJ-JP:40498] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10759/2025] There are several discrepancies in their testimonies. It is also argued that co-accused Meenu Devi has been enlarged on bail by Hon’ble Apex Court. He is in custody since 28.05.2022. Trial will take considerable time and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the instant bail application. He submits that as per the prosecution case, on 26.05.2022, a written report was submitted by complainant Sardar Meena at Police Station Dudu alleging therein that his three daughters Kalu, Mamta and Kamlesh who are married to Narsi, Gaurav @ Jagdish (petitioner herein) and Mukesh, sons of Bhanwarlal have been missing since 25.05.2022. Besides them, two sons of Smt. Kalu, who are 4 years old and 22 days old only are also missing. It is also stated that Mamta and Kamlesh both are carrying pregnancy. He apprehends that his daughters and grandsons have been killed by their in-laws on account of demand of dowry as they used to harass and torture them on account of demand of dowry. Learned Public Prosecutor argues that during investigation, alleged offences have been found to be made out. Charges have been framed against them and out of 41 witnesses, 37 witnesses have been examined and as such, trial is at fag end. It is contended that the case of the co-accused Meenu Devi who has been enlarged on bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be said to be at par with the case of present petitioner as she was a widowed sister-in-law of the three deceased sisters and by that time, only 23 witnesses out of 41 witnesses could have examined. Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed that her case is distinct and different than her co-accused. He further argues that looking to [2025:RJ-JP:40498] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10759/2025] the seriousness of the allegations and gravity of offence, the petitioner does not deserves indulgence of bail. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. In the present case, three sisters Mamta, Kamlesh, Kalu, two children and two unborn children lost their lives. It has been alleged against the petitioner and co-accused that they subjected deceased sisters to mental and physical torture for various reasons including demand of dowry. Trial is at fag end as 37 witnesses out of 41 witnesses have already been examined at trial. The case of the present petitioner is not at par with the case of his sister Meenu. Thus, in the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, looking to the nature of allegations and gravity of offence as also the fact that trial is at fag end, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. The trial court is requested to expedite the proceedings. 7. The observation made herein is only for disposal of the instant bail application and would not prejudice trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /34