[2025:RJ-JP:7212] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 2422/2025 Magan Singh S/o Late Shri Dhan Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Khatipura, Police Station Rudawal, District Bharatpur. (Currently In Sub Jail Bayana). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Biri Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Harendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP Mr. Rajneesh Gupta for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 19/02/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR No.281/2024 registered at Police Station Rudawal, District Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 201 & 34 of IPC. 2. The first bail application bearing No. 11539/2024 was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after examination of witnesses namely; Khubiram S/o Soniya Ram, Bhagwan Dei wife of Khubiram, Puran Singh S/o Khubiram, Nikita Kmari D/o Magan, Priyanshi @ Bhola D/o Magan Singh and Dikshay D/o Magan Singh on priority basis. 3. Heard. [2025:RJ-JP:7212] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2422/2025] 4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the charge-sheet as well as the statement of the prosecution witnesses examined so far. 5. The father of the deceased namely; Khubi Ram Meena (PW- 2) during his examination before the trial Court has stated that the accused-petitioner was having extra-marital affairs with some other woman but the deceased daughter never conveyed to him any such thing. He has also stated that the accused-petitioner has purchased lands at Jaipur and Bharatpur. The father of the deceased has further stated that he never tried to meet the daughter of the deceased and very strangely said that he did not meet them because he has no relation with them. 6. PW-3 (Bhagwan Dei) who is the mother of the deceased also showed ignorance about the daughter of the deceased and had only made allegation against the accused-petitioner that he has murdered her daughter. 7. PW-4 the daughter of the deceased namely; Ms. Nikita Kumari has not supported the prosecution story and declared hostile. She has further stated that before death of her mother she had some chest pain. 8. PW-5-Ms. Priyanshi, who is also the daughter of the deceased has not supported the prosecution story and declared hostile. In her statement she has stated that before death of her mother (deceased), she was having complaint of chest pain. 9. PW-6-Ms. Dikshay who is also a six year daughter of the deceased has also stated that before death the deceased (mother) was having complaint of chest pain. She has been relied by the prosecution though this witness has not been declared hostile. [2025:RJ-JP:7212] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2422/2025] 10. There is one more material witness PW-1 namely; Pooran Singh who as per the version of the counsel for the petitioner and the complainant, is a lawyer. The said witness PW-1 in his cross- examination has stated ignorance of allegations against the co- accused namely; Vijay, Rajveer & Amrit Lal against whom the Police has submitted charge-sheet. Meaning-thereby, the version of said witness is only partly supporting the prosecution story and in such circumstances when that witness is a lawyer, his credibility seems to be doubtful. 11. During the course of arguments it has also come that out of the wedlock of the accused-petitioner and the deceased four girls have born. 12. From the statements of the prosecution side i.e. father, mother and brother of the deceased it is clear that they have shown ignorance and no relation with the daughters of the deceased. Meaning-thereby, it is only the accused-petitioner who can look after those four girls. 13. The deceased has left behind her four minor girls and as per the statements of the parents of the deceased that they do not want to have any relation with those girls and in such circumstances the welfare and upliftment of the girls is to be taken up by the petitioner only. 14. Taking into consideration the period of the custody of the petitioner and so also the welfare of the four minor girls of the deceased and the petitioner is only the bread earner for those girls and so also the discussion about the version of the prosecution witnesses as stated in the above paras, this Court without [2025:RJ-JP:7212] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2422/2025] commenting on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 15. The observations made in the foregoing paras are only for purpose of consideration of this bail application. 16. Accordingly, this second bail application is accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J DIVYA SAINI /31