[2025:RJ-JP:9113] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 3074/2025 Rajesh S/o Failiram Meena, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Bhura Data Ki Dhani, Tan Digo, Police Station Lalsot, District Dausa. (At Present Confined In District Jail Dausa). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Uma Shankar Pandey For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/03/2025 1. The instant 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. 326/2024 registered at Police Station Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 201 & 120B of IPC. Later on, police filed charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 306 & 201 of IPC. 2. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, this second bail application has been preferred on behalf of petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that though FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Section 304B [2025:RJ-JP:9113] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3074/2025] of IPC but said offence was not found proved in the investigation and police submitted the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 306 & 201 of IPC. Counsel submits that cremation of the deceased was done after informing the complainant party which is evident from the testimony of the mother of the deceased. Counsel submits that admittedly, at the time of commission of suicide, petitioner was not present at the place of incident and deceased was taken to the hospital by the family members of the petitioner. Counsel submits that two real sisters of the deceased are also married in the same family and they have not alleged anything against the petitioner. Counsel submits that there are two children of the petitioner and deceased and both are with the family members of the petitioner. Counsel submits that during the course of trial, only one witness has been examined out of 36 cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 30.09.2024 and trial of the case will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC was not found proved in the investigation against the petitioner; during the course of trial, only one witness [2025:RJ-JP:9113] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3074/2025] has been examined out of 36 cited prosecution witnesses; absence of criminal antecedents of the petitioner; looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Rajesh S/o Failiram Meena shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /52