[2026:RJ-JD:4729]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15149/2025 Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Shankar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ala Prithvigarh Ps Kotawali Dist Banswara Raj. (At Present Lodged Dist Jail Pali) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RC Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

27/01/2026

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.87/2025 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana (Pali), District Pali, for the offences under Sections 85 and 108 of BNS.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per the prosecution case, the deceased Pooja committed suicide by hanging herself within six to seven years of her marriage, allegedly due to physical and mental cruelty inflicted upon her by the present petitioner. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was submitted that the petitioner and the deceased had solemnized their marriage after a long-standing love affair and, subsequent to the marriage, they were leading a happy married life.

4. Drawing the attention of this Court towards the statements of Dilip Dindore, Ajay Dindore, Harish Dindore, Smt. Sukhna and others, learned counsel submitted that, on the date of the incident, all the aforesaid persons were together. The petitioner had consumed liquor along with Ajay and Dilip. However, on the said date, a quarrel took place between the petitioner and the deceased, whereafter the deceased, in a fit of anger, went inside a room and bolted it from within.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that the family members of the deceased, namely Dilip, Sunil, Laxmi and others have levelled omnibus allegations of demand of dowry against the petitioner without any cogent or reliable evidence. To substantiate the same it was contended that the material available on record prima facie indicates that the deceased committed suicide as a result of a sudden quarrel between the husband and wife on the date of the alleged incident and the petitioner has neither harassed nor humiliated the deceased in connection with dowry demand, nor did he instigate, aid or compel the deceased to commit suicide.

6. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is presently in judicial custody; the investigation against him has already been concluded; and the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. Therefore, the petitioner deserve to be enlarged on bail.

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

8. Having considered the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the witnesses Ajay, Pradeep, Harish, Dilip and Sukhna, who were with the deceased soon prior to the commission of suicide, have, in their statements, unequivocally stated that on the date of the incident, a quarrel had taken place between the husband and wife as the deceased objected to the petitioner consuming alcohol, whereafter she locked herself inside a room and committed suicide. The question as to whether the deceased committed suicide due to harassment allegedly caused by the petitioner in connection with demand of dowry, or as a result of a sudden quarrel which took place between them on the date of the incident, is a matter to be adjudicated by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence and material produced before it.

9. This Court further prima facie finds that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents; the investigation against him has already been concluded; and the learned Public Prosecutor has not expressed any apprehension regarding the petitioner influencing the witnesses or