[2025:RJ-JP:50366] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 16001/2025 Kishan Saini S/o Shri Rudmal Saini, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Kakuniya Ki Dhani, Presently Bilochi Nagar, In Front Of Shop No. 06, Behind Jagirdar Chamber, Benad Road, Police Station Harmada, District Jaipur West (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In Central Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anish Bhadala, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr N.S Dhakar, PP Mr. M.S Shekhawat, PP Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 10/12/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.650/2023 registered at Police Station Harmada, District Jaipur (West) for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 365 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of the complainant as well as Investigating Officer of this case. Now, both the aforesaid witnesses have been examined. [2025:RJ-JP:50366] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-16001/2025] Thus, this second bail application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that relationship between the deceased and petitioner was consensual in nature. Counsel submits that the deceased and petitioner wanted to marry each other but family members of the deceased were against it, so they planned to commit suicide by slitting their neck. He submits that in an unfortunate turn of events, deceased died and the petitioner somehow survived, however, he was hospitalized and remained in hospital for a long time. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 05.02.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner forcefully made the deceased sign the suicide note. Counsel further submits that petitioner slit the throat of deceased by a razor (ustara and thereafter, slit his own neck and then planted the razor in the right hand of the deceased just to make the case of suicide. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that in post- mortem report of the deceased, it has been observed that the cut is an incised wound of size 10x8 cm deep gaping over the front of [2025:RJ-JP:50366] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-16001/2025] neck cutting through the skin shows that injury was caused by petitioner to murder the deceased. It is submitted that on 02.10.2023, a razor (ustara) was recovered from right hand of the deceased. Thereafter, site plan was prepared. Counsel contends that deceased was left handed so it is not possible that the injury which was defined in post-mortem was inflicted by the deceased to commit suicide. It shows that injury was caused by accused to murder the deceased. It is contended that as per FSL report dated 27.05.2025 (Exhibit P.37), human blood was detected from the razor (ustara) which was recovered from the crime scene and male DNA profile was also obtained from it which shows that razor (ustara) recovered from the right hand of the deceased was planted by the accused to show the case of suicide. It is further contended that PW-2 Himmat Singh, who is Investigating Officer of this case, has admitted in his examination-in-chief that he mentioned this fact in the charge-sheet that deceased gave her signature on suicide note because she was pressurized by the petitioner to do so. Counsel submits that when car of the petitioner was searched, blood was found under the passenger’s seat which shows that deceased was murdered in the car and later, body of the deceased was recovered from an isolated place and razor (ustara) was planted in right hand of the deceased to make it a case of suicide. Learned counsel argues that PW-1 Satyanarayan Saini (father of deceased), PW-3 Jitendra Saini (brother of deceased), PW-4 Manju Devi (mother of deceased) and PW-5 Babulal Saini (uncle of deceased) levelled specific allegations against the accused petitioner in their Court testimony. It is also [2025:RJ-JP:50366] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-16001/2025] submitted that the members of the Medical Board have not been examined yet. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially in view of the facts that the petitioner himself was found at the scene of crime in a badly bleeding condition and thereafter he remained under treatment for a prolonged period and has been in custody for about 22 months and also considering the tender age of the petitioner at the time of alleged incident, and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application. 8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Kishan Saini S/o Shri Rudmal Saini, shall be released on bail provided, he shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 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. 9. Suffice to say that it is for the trial Court to decide whether matter falls under the offence of murder or suicide and it would not be appropriate for this Court to give any opinion at this stage. [2025:RJ-JP:50366] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-16001/2025] 10. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /20