[2026:RJ-JP:20094] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 6867/2026 Mahesh Kumar Son Of Shri Kamal, Aged About 38 Years, Resident of 36A, Adarsh Basti, Tonk Phatak, Lalkothi, Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)- (Presently Confined In District Jail Dausa Since 16.5.2025) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma Ms. Ayushi Singh Ms. Sanjana Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 12.05.2026 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 12.05.2026 3. Whether the full judgment or only operative part is pronounced Full 4. Date of pronouncement 14.05.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this misc. second bail application under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, who was arrested by the police on 16.05.2025 in connection with the FIR bearing No.115/2025, registered at Police Station Kotwali (Dausa), District Dausa dated 18.02.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 80(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court by order dated 13.03.2026, whereby liberty was granted to [2026:RJ-JP:20094] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-6867/2026] file a fresh after recording the statements of the complainant on priority basis. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Saransh Saini submitted that the complainant lodged the FIR in the instant case on 18.02.2025 for offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 80(2) B.N.S., 2023 wherein the allegation was that he had murdered his wife, who is the daughter of the complainant. After investigation, police filed the charge-sheet in the instant case on 09.07.2025 for offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 238(a) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel further submitted that in the Post-Mortem Report, it has been mentioned that deceased died due to the injuries suffered in the accident. In respect of the external appearance, it has been specifically recorded in the Post-Mortem Report that there were no marks of pressure/ligature on neck. He also submitted that the cause of death was kept reserved for the FSL Report and Histo- Pathological Report. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the FSL Report shows the presence of Aluminum Phosphide, however, no other metallic poison, etc. was found. He further submitted that though the report shows the presence of Aluminum Phosphide, however, the Medical Board of District Hospital, Dausa after going through the Post-Mortem Report dated 19.02.2025, FSL Report dated 25.06.2025 and Histo-Pathological Report dated 11.03.2025, recorded that FSL Report showed positive tests for the presence of Aluminum Phosphide poison. However, the report states “that the final cause of death of deceased Parul Saini, W/o Mahesh Saini, aged 35 years, R/o Makan No.36, Adarsh Basti Tonk [2026:RJ-JP:20094] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-6867/2026] Phatak. PS Bajaj Nagar, District Jaipur is asphyxia brought about as a result of ante-mortem smothering (pressure over mouth and nose), which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature”. Learned counsel submitted that on one hand the cause of death has been held to be due to ‘Asphyxia’, however, the Post-Mortem Report, in respect of the external appearance, shows no mark of pressure/ligature on neck or any other part of the body which may show that the deceased died due to asphyxia and the marks as are present on the face, are injuries sustained in the accident. In the absence of any serious mark the complete conclusion appears to be contradictory. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant, Banwari Lal, father of the deceased, whose statement were recorded as PW-1, failed to prove the allegations as levelled in the FIR. The complete cross-examination of PW-1 shows that though the marriage took place in the year 2018, and up till February 2025, no FIR or any criminal case in regard to alleged demand of dowry or domestic violence etc. was ever lodged before any Court of competent jurisdiction. The witness further failed to state that there was any complaint made in regard to demand of dowry etc. by his deceased daughter to him. Though, he alleged that the petitioner had caused the death, however, he admitted the serious damage to the car, of which, the front tyre had burst, glasses were broken and complete car sustained major damages. As per learned counsel, the petitioner and the deceased were going to Mathura by road for their onwards journey from Mathura to Prayagraj(Kumbh Mela) for religious purposes, however, they met with an unfortunate accident in which the [2026:RJ-JP:20094] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-6867/2026] deceased died due to internal injuries and mental shock and the petitioner also suffered some injuries. Therefore, the complete allegations are false and the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail by this Court. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application. 6. This Court dismissed the first bail application of the petitioner by order dated 13.03.2026 with a liberty to file afresh after recording the statement of complainant. This Court considered the Post-Mortem Report dated 19.02.2025 which does not disclose any serious injury on the mouth and nose which may lead to the conclusion that the deceased died due to asphyxia. Admittedly, the external appearance of the body, as mentioned in the Post-Mortem Report, shows no mark of pressure/ligature on the neck or any other part of body. As per the opinion of the Medical Board dated 16.05.2025, though there were minor abrasion and swelling on the temporal region of the head, same cannot be connected with the asphyxia, which has been stated to be the cause of death. The Medical Board has given the final cause of death as asphyxia but the Post-Mortem Report does not contain any such injury or other marks which may show that deceased died due to asphyxia as result of said injury. This Court also noted that cause of death is not the presence of Aluminum Phosphide. 7. This Court also considered the statement of PW-1, who, in his detailed cross-examination, failed to state that there was any demand of dowry from the petitioner or his family members. This witness further failed to state that from the date of marriage, which took place in 2018, up to the date of alleged incident i.e. [2026:RJ-JP:20094] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-6867/2026] 18.02.2025, any complaint, FIR etc. ever lodged by the deceased prior to the death or by her family members against the petitioner or his family members in respect of alleged demand of dowry, cruelty, domestic violence etc. This Court is unable to find any reason from the charge-sheet and also from the evidence of material witnesses PW-1 (complainant), as to why petitioner would commit such an offence as alleged in the FIR. This Court also noted that minor child of petitioner and deceased is with father and mother of the petitioner. In the absence of any such allegation and/or case in the past, there is no basis/reason to presume the allegations of the complainant to be true. 8. This Court also noted that the police, after investigation, has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner-husband only. Though, allegations were levelled against the in-laws also, however, charge-sheet has not been filed against them. There are no allegations of any extra-marital affair, demand of dowry, etc. in the past, in view of the above, after considering the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Kamal shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. The petitioner is further directed not to take undue advantage of liberty or misuse [2026:RJ-JP:20094] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-6867/2026] liberty. It is made clear that the observation as made by this Court in the bail application will not affect the trial of the case. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J Dushyant