[2025:RJ-JP:48328] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14801/2025 Akshay Jain S/o Shri Lalchand Jain, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 53-54, Nirman Nagar, Police Station Shyam Nagar, Jaipur (Presently Confined In Jaipur Central Jail) ----Applicant Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ram Manohar Sharma For State For Complainant : : Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Dinesh Bishnoi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order Reserved on :: 25/11/2025 Pronounced on :: 28 /11/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) on behalf of the accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No.415/2025 registered at Police Station Shyam Nagar, Jaipur City (South) for offences punishable under Sections 108 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. Learned counsel for the applicant had submitted that the applicant is approximately 40 years of age and is in judicial custody since 06.09.2025. It was submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed for offences under Section 108 read with Section 61(2) BNS. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant has a 10-year-old child and that his marriage with the [2025:RJ-JP:48328] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-14801/2025] deceased was solemnised on 11.07.2013. It was urged that on 20.07.2025, the deceased was found dead under suspicious circumstances at the matrimonial home; however, the marriage having taken place 12 years ago, the ingredients of Section 80 of BNS are not attracted. 3. It was further submitted that the deceased was diagnosed with carcinoma (breast cancer) of the right breast, as per report dated 31.08.2024, and underwent eight cycles of chemotherapy, followed by surgical removal of the breast on 13.02.2025. It was further contended that the applicant personally took care of the deceased and bore all her medical expenses at Apollo Hospital, Chennai, and subsequently at Mahaveer Cancer Hospital, Jaipur. It was argued that albeit there were disturbances in marital life and the deceased had, at one stage, gone to her parental home, upon being diagnosed with cancer she returned and was taken care of by the applicant. 4. It was contended that the applicant’s minor son has given a statement that does not support the allegation of instigation of suicide. Learned counsel further pointed out that a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act was lodged in 2024, but it was amicably considered before the National Lok Adalat. Thence, considering the custody period, family circumstances, and filing of the charge-sheet on 03.11.2025, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. The father of the complainant has marked his presence before the Court. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and [2025:RJ-JP:48328] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-14801/2025] submitted that the marriage was severely disturbed and despite being a cancer patient, the deceased was subjected to continuous mental and physical cruelty. It was further submitted that on 20.07.2025, immediately prior to the incident, the deceased sent a long and detailed message to her father on WhatsApp, which is self-explanatory and evidently reveals the mental agony, harassment, and distress caused by the applicant. It was further contended that the post-mortem report records the cause of death as “asphyxia”, which, coupled with the message sent shortly before the incident, indicates instigation to die by suicide. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and scanned the material available on record. 8. Considering the rival submissions, the material collected during investigation; the nature and gravity of accusations under Sections 108 and 61(2) BNS; the fact that the instant marriage was not a “happy marriage” and the deceased/victim was made to suffer physically as well as mentally qua which complaint has been lodged in the year 2024, however, the same was dismissed (Annexure-5) on the basis of compromise entered inter-se the parties, before the National Lok Adalat; the circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased; the detailed message allegedly sent by the deceased to her father immediately before the incident, indicating her pitiable condition; and the post- mortem report indicating death by “asphyxia”, this Court is of the considered opinion that at this stage accused-applicant ought not be released on bail. 9. At the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence is neither warranted nor permissible; however, the Court [2025:RJ-JP:48328] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-14801/2025] must assess whether the accusations reflect grave and serious allegations necessitating custodial detention. Thence, reliance can be placed upon the ratio encapsulated in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, Manipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar reported in (2020) 2 SCC 118; wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while considering a bail application, the Court must examine the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, evidence supporting the accusation, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses. 10. Furthermore, in cases involving abetment of suicide, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433, observed that the conduct of the accused prior to the incident, including continuous harassment and mental cruelty, is a relevant factor while considering bail. In the matter at hand, the gravity of the allegation of instigation, the proximity between the alleged acts of cruelty and the suicide, the contents of the message sent by the deceased, and the nature of death prima facie reveal circumstances that require deeper scrutiny during trial. At this stage, enlarging the applicant on bail may adversely affect the course of justice, particularly when the complainant and material witnesses are close family members. 11. Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court does not find the present matter to be a fit case for grant of bail at this stage; and accordingly, the bail application stands dismissed at this stage. [2025:RJ-JP:48328] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-14801/2025] 12. Records, if any, made available to the Court for perusal during the consideration of instant bail application, are directed to be returned, in due course and procedure prescribed. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /