[2025:RJ-JP:11935]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 3764/2025 Gajendra Kumar S/o Kalicharan, R/o Dhabawali, Police Station Thoi, District Neem Ka Thana, At Present Saket Nand City, Near Shiv Ice Factory, Jaipur Bikaner Byepass, Sikar, Police Station Sadar, District Sikar (Raj.) At Present Lodged In The District Jail, Sikar.

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through The PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg Ms. Vaishnavi Mr. Nonit Hatila For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Savita Nathawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

17/03/2025

1. This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.179/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar Sikar for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. After completion of investigation, chargesheet has been filed for offence under Section 306 IPC.

2. Vide order dated 04.12.2024, first bail application (No.11546/2024) filed on behalf of the accused petitioner was dismissed. However, liberty to renew the prayer of bail was granted to the accused petitioner after recording evidence of his two children during trial. Now, their court statements have been recorded. Hence, this second bail application.

3. Shri Ashvin Garg, learned counsel representing the accused- petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that in order to attract offences punishable under the POCSO Act, intentionally, false allegations of sexual abuse and teasing with his own children have been levelled by the complainant. However, during investigation, such allegations were not found proved and police filed charge sheet only for offence under Section 306 IPC in the court concerned. It is further contended that an application was also filed by the complainant before the trial court for transferring the case to POCSO Court as allegations constituting offence punishable under Section 354 D IPC and Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act are said to be there in the instant case. In the application, it was also prayed that cognizance for offence under Section 306 IPC and in alternate for offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 354D IPC and Sections 11, 12 of POCSO Act should be taken. Learned counsel submits that there was no reference of such incident in the statements of the children recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The said application was disposed of with liberty to the complainant to initiate proceedings in the court concerned. It is contended that charge only for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC has been framed. It is submitted that allegations constituting offence punishable under the POCSO Act were not maintained at initial stage when both children were examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C but later on, supplementary statement of daughter Mst. A was recorded and she was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she levelled allegation against her father, petitioner herein that she used to touch her inappropriately. Learned counsel argues that these allegations were levelled by the children when they were in custody of the children. She gave such statement under influence and pressure of her maternal. It is further contended that marriage of the petitioner and deceased was solemnized in the year 2007. As per the material available on record, both petitioner and deceased used to quarrel for domestic chores. The petitioner is of short temper nature. Further, it has come out during investigation that the petitioner scolded his daughter as she was talking to with a body on phone and due to which, both petitioner and his wife also quarreled and thereafter, in absence of the petitioner, she committed suicide. The cause of death is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. Except ligature mark, no other external injury marks were seen on the body o