The court denied bail based on the serious nature of the charges and the risk of evidence tampering, highlighting that the accused did not demonstrate sufficient change in circumstances.

Order :

1. The instant third bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused- applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No.591/2022 registered at Police Station Chaksu District Jaipur City (South) for the offence under Section 304B of IPC wherein final report was filed for the offence(s) under Section 306 of IPC .

2. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused has apprised this Court that against the dismissal of 2^nd Bail Application, the petitioner has preferred an SLP, however, due to an inadvertent error the said fact was incorrectly revealed as ‘no SLP is filed’.

3. Application (I.A. No.1/2025), is allowed for the reasons stated therein.

4. Order passed in SLP No.3175/2024 by Hon’ble Apex Court is taken on record.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that accused-applicant is behind bars since 22.11.2023 and trial is going at a snails’ pace.

6. Further, it is submitted that no criminal antecedents are registered against the applicant, and charges so levelled against the accused-applicant under Section 304-B and 306 of IPC respectively are restricted and limited to the extent of offence under Section 306 of IPC (Abatement of suicide) in the final report.

7. Additionally, it is submitted that against the order of second bail application, applicant preferred an (SLP Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3175/2024) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is dismissed vide order dated 24.04.2024, howsoever with liberty to approach the concerned High Court/appropriate Court in case of change in circumstances.

8. In this regard, it is submitted that, as on date, there is change in circumstances for the reason that statements tendered by the PW-8 (Doctor) and the Complainant-victim’s father has not supported the story of prosecution, and after passing of the order by Hon’ble Supreme Court approximately 12 witnesses are examined by the learned Trial Court till date, therefore, there is no possibility that the accused-applicant will influence the testimony of other witnesses. Moreover, offence under Section 306 of IPC is less heinous in nature.

9. Lastly, it is submitted that on account of ongoing litigation, victim had all reasons and motive to commit suicide, therefore, in light of the above stated, accused-applicant ought to be released on bail.

10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the present bail application ought to be dismissed for the reason that first and second bail application are dismissed by the Court after due evaluation of facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that post (Police constable) of the accused-applicant is duly considered by the Court.

11. Furthermore, it is submitted that medical reports duly reflects the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased.

12. Subsequently, it is submitted that there are attempts of tampering with the evidences by the accused-applicant.

13. Additionally, it is submitted that Complainant- victims’ father was not informed in the due time of the said incident.

14. Further, it is submitted that only upon filing of the petition for fair investigation under Section 482 of CrPC before the High Court, fair investigation was carried out.

15. Consequently, it is submitted that offence under Section 306 of IPC is also of heinous nature and trial is proceeding at a satisfactory speed as approximately 12 witnesses are examined till date.

16. Lastly, contrary to the contention of learned counsel for the accused-applicant it is submitted that statements tendered by PW- 8 and complainant-victims’ father has supported prosecution story.

17. Heard and considered.

18. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties; that offence under Section 306 of IPC is heinous in nature; that there are possibility that accused-applicant if enlarged on bail may tamper with the evidences; that accused-applicant has n