[2025:RJ-JD:54089]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1928/2025

Poan Kumar R S/o Shri Ramamurti, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Kilkuppam Tehsil Kalasa Pakkam, P.S. Kaladi Dist Tiruvannamallai, Tamilnadu, At Present 14 Mahar Regiment, 56 A.P.O, P.S. Sadar Dist Bikaner (At Present Lodged In Central Jail

Bikaner)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushal Gautam

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prem Singh Panwar, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

16/12/2025

1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 369/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar, Bikaner, District Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 85, 316(2), 82(2)

or alternatively Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

2. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he committed murder of his wife by throttling her. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was contended that there is no eyewitness of the alleged incident; the petitioner has no criminal antecedents; there was no motive for the petitioner to commit the alleged crime; and that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of suspicion and the alleged extra-judicial confession

made before one Sudesh Kumar, which is a weak piece of evidence and, by itself, cannot form the basis of conviction. It was further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the investigation has already been completed; and the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. Therefore, it was prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at the Bar and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner was residing in an Army Unit with his wife. Upon hearing shouts raised by the petitioner, when the complainant reached the place of occurrence, he saw the petitioner was holding his wife in his arms. The petitioner had also made an extra-judicial confession admitting murdering his wife before Sudesh Kumar. The statement of Sudesh Kumar (PW-1) has already been recorded before the competent criminal Court.

5. Extra-judicial confessions are governed by Sections 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act and are admissible in evidence if made voluntarily and without any threat, inducement, or promise. The statement of Sudesh Kumar (PW-1) indicates that the extra- judicial confession made before him by the petitioner was clear, unambiguous and without any influence. No material has been placed on record to suggest that Sudesh Kumar (PW-1) is an untrustworthy witness or that he has deposed against the petitioner due to any personal animosity.

6. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the gravity of the offence, and the material collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Consequently, the instant criminal miscellaneous bail application is dismissed. (KULDEEP MATHUR),J

15-divya/-