[2025:RJ-JP:49503] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 1616/2025 Mahesh @ Balu S/o Shri Mangi Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Guwalad, Police Station Gangdhar, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) (Accused Confined In Sub Jail Bhawanimandi). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pallav Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/12/2025 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.94/2024 registered at Police Station Unhel Nageshwar, District Jhalawar (Raj.) for offence punishable under Sections 108 & 351(3) of BNS, 2023. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 15.01.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after submission of result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has been filed in this matter, thus this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that all the material witnesses have been examined during the course of trial. It is submitted that no evidence is available on record to [2025:RJ-JP:49503] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1616/2025] attract the offence punishable under Sections 108 & 351(3) of BNS (corresponding to Sections 306 & 506 of IPC), as the ingredients of Section 45 of BNS (corresponding to Section 107 of IPC) are not visible. It is submitted that petitioner and deceased were in consensual relationship which is evident from their call details. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that ample evidence is available on record. He submits that despite several requests not to harass the deceased/victim, the petitioner harassed her and soon before the incident, he threatened the deceased due to which she jumped in the pond and took her life. 5. I have heard the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including the testimony of Nisha, who has been examined during the course of trial as PW-2 wherein it appears that deceased was the daughter of her aunt (mausi) and she was residing with her at the relevant time and she has stated in very clear terms that soon before the incident, deceased received a call from the petitioner and he gave threatening to her due to which she jumped in the pond and took her life thus, looking to the role [2025:RJ-JP:49503] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1616/2025] attributed to the petitioner as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, this second bail application stands dismissed. 8. 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 GAUTAM JAIN /5