[2025:RJ-JD:52955]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 11876/2025 Chandra Prakash S/o Shri Nirmal Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Mirdha Colony Kuchera Nagaur Rajasthan (Presently Lodged At Central Jail Jodhpur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. OP Joshi.

Mr. Karan Joshi.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

06/12/2025 The instant second application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner, who has been arrested in the present matter. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S. No. Particulars of the case

1. FIR Number 154/2025 2. Police Station Boranada

3. District Jodhpur City West

4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Section 108 of the BNS.

5. Offences added, if any -

The 1^st bail application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e. S.B.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8556/2025 was dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2025 passed by this Court with the liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application after filing of the challan. After rejection of first bail application, challan has been filed.

Hence, this second application for bail has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there was a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the deceased. He also submits that they were exchanging telephonic conversations and WhatsApp messages. There is no evidence available on record to establish at any point of time; the petitioner instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He further submits that there is delay of seven day in lodging the FIR.

Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on paragraph 10 of the judgment rendered in Mohit Singhal & Anr. vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 3578 of 2023], decided on 01.12.2023, which reads as under:

“10. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in the close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of the imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide the deceased has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ayyub & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. passed Criminal Appeal No. 461 of 2925 dated 07.02.2025, wherein the Hon’ble court held that for abetment of suicide, the alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. The relevant portion of observation in the said judgment is quoted below :

“18. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438), the appellant remarked to the deceased that ‘go and die’ and the deceased thereafter committed suicide. This Court held that :-

“…. Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite means rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events….”

19. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that in order to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused wit