[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chandra Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:52955) on 6 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:52955]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 11876/2025
Chandra Prakash S/o Shri Nirmal Kumar, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Mirdha Colony Kuchera Nagaur Rajasthan (Presently Lodged
At Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. OP Joshi.
Mr. Karan Joshi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
06/12/2025
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
2. Police Station Boranada
3. District Jodhpur City West
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Section 108 of the
BNS.
5. Offences added, if any -
The 1st bail application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e. S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8556/2025 was dismissed vide
order dated 30.07.2025 passed by this Court with the liberty to
the petitioner to file fresh bail application after filing of the
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 07:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52955] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11876/2025]
challan. After rejection of first bail application, challan has been filed.
Hence, this second application for bail has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that
there was a consensual relationship between the petitioner and
the deceased. He also submits that they were exchanging
telephonic conversations and WhatsApp messages. There is no
evidence available on record to establish at any point of time; the
petitioner instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
He further submits that there is delay of seven day in lodging the
FIR.
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
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 07:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52955] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11876/2025]
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 line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that in order to
make out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as
contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an
intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of
that abetment is required. It has been further held that the intention of the
accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a
must for attracting Section 306 IPC [See Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of
Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628]. Further, the alleged harassment
meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put
an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide there must be
proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide [See
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707
and M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ramesh Kumar vs. State
of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618].
20. These principles have been reiterated recently by this Court in
Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76."
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner is in custody since 02.07.2025, the charge-sheet has
already been filed and trial of the case will take sufficiently long
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 07:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52955] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11876/2025]
time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-
petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application and submitted that looking to the allegation levelled
against the petitioner, he may not be enlarged on bail. However,
he fairly admits that petitioner and deceased were in a consensual
relationship.
Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case as well as perused the material
available on record; considering the fact that the petitioner is in
custody since 02.07.2025 and the trial will take sufficiently long
time to conclude, without expressing any opinion on
merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the 2nd bail application under Section 483 of
BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-
petitioner as named in the cause title, arrested in connection with
the above mentioned FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in
any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the
satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that
court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to
do so till completion of the trial.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
10-Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 07:14:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
