State of Rajasthan, through The PP v. For

: 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 17/03/2025 Order

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 [2025:RJ-JP:11935] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-3764/2025] 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 [2025:RJ-JP:11935] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-3764/2025] 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 of the deceased. The petitioner is in custody since 19.07.2024 whereas trial will take time in its conclusion as only two witnesses out of 25 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

4. Per contra, Shri N.S. Dhakar, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Advocate assisted with Ms. Savita Nathawat, representing the complainant have opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. They submit that it has come on record that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and maltreatment since long by the petitioner. The petitioner is a short tempered person, who used to beat deceased wife on regular [2025:RJ-JP:11935] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-3764/2025] basis. It is also contended that after dismissal of the first bail application, nothing substantial change has occurred, warranting change of the earlier view taken by this Court. As per the statement of the son of the petitioner, he is also involved in drug trafficking. One rape case has also been registered against the petitioner.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to substantiate such allegations, there is no material available on record. As per the charge sheet, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

7. I have considered the contentions. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material including charge sheet and court statements of both children, made available before me; during investigation, except offence under Section 306 IPC, no other offence has been found proved; the petitioner got married with the deceased in the year 2007; he is in custody since

19.07.2024; conclusion of trial will take considerable time as till date only two witnesses out of 25 cited witnesses have been examined so far and absence of criminal antecedents but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Gajendra Kumar S/o Shri Kalicharan shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand [2025:RJ-JP:11935] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-3764/2025] Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

9. The observation made hereinabove is just for decision of this bail application and would not prejudice trial in any manner. GAUTAM JAIN/733 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J