Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37886 (RAJ)

RAJENDRA PRAJAPAT S/O SHRI CHAUTHMAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/13304/2025 · 2025-10-15

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:42169] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.13304/2025 Rajendra Prajapat S/o Shri Chauthmal, R/o Kumhar Mohalla, Bhavta, Police Station Kolwa, District Dausa (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Bandikui, Dausa). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, through its Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Amit Punia, Addl. GA-cum-PP Mr. Vishram Prajapati JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/10/2025 1. This bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by petitioner in connection with the FIR No.119/2025 registered at Police Station Kolwa, District Dausa wherein he has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2) & 103(1) of BNS 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the case of the prosecution, the allegation against the petitioner is that he did not provide food and milk to his minor daughter and because of starvation, she expired. Learned counsel submits that although the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he has beaten his minor daughter, however, the deceased has not sustained any injury. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since the date of his arrest and trial [2025:RJ-JP:42169] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13304/2025] will take its own time to conclude, therefore indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner. Lastly, he argued that now the complainant, who is the wife of the petitioner does not want to prosecute the petitioner, so considering this aspect as well, indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has supported the version of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 4 Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the nature of allegations, i.e., not providing food and milk to the minor daughter supported by the conclusion given by the Investigating Agency at the time of submission of charge-sheet stating that the reason of death of the minor daughter is starvation and looking to the fact that charge- sheet has been filed under Section 105 BNSS and also considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since the date of his arrest and trial will take its own time to conclude, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and appropriate to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS. 6. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner-Rajendra Prajapat S/o Shri Chauthmal arrested in connection with aforementioned FIR, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of [2025:RJ-JP:42169] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13304/2025] Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/209