[2026:RJ-JD:151]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13165/2025 Jitendra Singh Rawat S/o Sohan Singh Rawat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Barach, Police Station Bandor, District Beawar , Raj.

(At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Bhilwara)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahipal Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP Mr. R.K. Karwasara for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

06/01/2026 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.81/2025, registered at Police Station Badnor, District Beawar, for the offences under Sections 85 and 108 of BNS.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per the prosecution, the marriage of the deceased Leela Devi was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 2017. From the wedlock, two sons, namely Bhavesh and Shivraj, were born. Learned counsel further submitted that, according to the prosecution, the petitioner, under the influence of alcohol, used to physically abuse his wife, mentally harass her, and repeatedly subject her to cruelty on account of allegedly bringing insufficient dowry.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the allegations levelled against him are far from the truth. Drawing the attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel submitted that, in fact, the petitioner was working as a labourer in the State of Gujarat. It was further submitted that on 27.05.2025, after returning from Gujarat, the petitioner had a quarrel with his wife regarding the death of their goat and allegedly pressurised her to bring another goat. On 28.05.2025 also, the petitioner allegedly quarrelled with his wife, i.e., the deceased Leela Devi.

Learned counsel submitted that, as per the prosecution, due to the alleged bad behaviour of the petitioner and the continuous pressure mounted upon her to bring a new goat, the deceased took the extreme step of committing suicide along with her children.

Learned counsel further submitted that, even assuming that the petitioner misbehaved with the deceased and that she took the alleged abusive behaviour seriously, it still cannot be said that such conduct on the part of the petitioner drove the deceased to commit suicide along with her children.

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 period of time. Therefore, the benefit of bail deserves to be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the facts of the case clearly establish that the petitioner is guilty of the offence of abetment of suicide and, therefore, considering the seriousness of the allegations levelled against him, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Having considered the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that, although as per the prosecution the deceased felt harassed and humiliated due to the alleged abusive behaviour of the petitioner, to such an extent that she felt her self-esteem was tarnished, there is no direct evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner had the requisite mens rea or intention to aid or instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The Court further prima facie finds that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. It is also noted that the learned Public Prosecutor has not expressed any apprehension regarding the petitioner influencing material prosecution witnesses or absconding, in the event he is en