[2025:RJ-JD:54383]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13849/2025

Prakashdas @ Prakash Kumar S/o Moti Das, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Bhaylo Ka Bas, Lambiya, Police Station Sadar,

District Pali, Rajasthan.

(At Present Lodged In District Jail Pali)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushal Sharma

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

Mr. Chandra Bhanu Rajpurohit,

Akshay Surana and Mr. Tarun Dudia

for the complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

16/12/2025

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 248/2025 2. Police Station Sadar Pali

3. District Pali

4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 103(1) & 85

of BNS

5. Offences added, if any Under Section 108 & 115(2)

of BNS

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the present petitioner is husband of the deceased Meena. He further submits that on the date of alleged incident some verbal altercation took place between the petitioner and the deceased, however, the same does not amount to instigation or abetment.

He further submits that the petitioner and deceased had been living together peacefully and two children were born out of the wedlock. Learned counsel submits that the family was leading a happy life until the unfortunate incident took place and the deceased consumed poison and subsequently died. There is no evidence available on record to establish that the petitioner, at any point of time; instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member in his family and both the children are residing with their grand-mother.

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 li