[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arjun Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:15318) on 2 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:15318]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 3550/2026
Arjun Singh S/o Chhagan Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Loha,
P.s. Ratangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan (Lodged In Dist. Jail,
Churu)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sriram Choudhary, PP
Mr. Rakesh Dhaka
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
02/04/2026
1. By way of the present bail application, the applicant has
challenged the order dated 16.02.2026 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge Tara Nagar, District Churu, in Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No.39/2026 arising out of FIR
No.176/2025 registered at Police Station Tara Nagar, District
Churu, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 &
323 IPC and Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2) & 316(2) of BNS. The
applicant had also filed Ist Bail Application (S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Ist Bail Application No. 13434/2025) before this
Court, which was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated
17.11.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
was married to deceased Anju Kanwar, in the year 2019 and until
the date of incident, there had been no instance of cruelty by the
applicant nor any demand of dowry. He further submits that
deceased committed suicide as she was suffering from depression
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 02:06:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15318] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-3550/2026]
post termination of her pregnancy due to unavoidable reasons. In
support of this contention, he relies upon certain medical
documents to emphasize that the deceased was undergoing
treatment for depression.
3. It is further submitted that the death of deceased occurred
at Ahmedabad, and post that inquest proceedings were
conducted, wherein too, no objection was raised by the
complainant or his family members. He, therefore, contends that
the death was a result of suicide committed by deceased Anju
Kanwar, and that the applicant had no role in the same.
4. He further submits that after disposal of the earlier bail
application as not pressed vide order dated 17.11.2025, charges
were framed against the applicant for offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 406 & 323 IPC and Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2) &
316(2) of BNS by order dated 06.01.2026. Post that, the trial
commenced, and the Court summoned the witnesses, including
Govind Singh (the complainant and brother of deceased), who
failed to appear and thereafter submitted an order dated
13.02.2026 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision
Petition No.248/2026 (Govind Singh vs. State & Anr.),
whereby further proceedings pending before the learned
Additional Session Judge, Taranagar, District Churu were stayed.
5. He further submits that the complainant has laid a challenge
to the charges framed against the applicant while objecting that a
charge under Section 103 of the BNS was not framed. It is,
therefore, contended that since the complainant himself has
stalled the entire trial, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on
bail.
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 02:06:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15318] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-3550/2026]
6. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance upon the
judgment dated 06.01.2026 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
S.L.P. (Crl.) No.15478/2025 (Arvind Dham vs. Directorate
of Enforcement). He places heavy reliance upon the paragraphs
15, 21 & 23 of the said judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and asserts that the respondents in that case had filed a
revision, wherein the trial had been stayed; therefore, the Hon'ble
Apex Court had held that without going into the merits of the
case, the applicant therein was entitled to be enlarged on bail. He,
therefore, submits that on the same analogy applicant also
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
application and submits that considering the nature and gravity of
allegations and the sufficient material available on record, the
earlier bail application was dismissed as not pressed vide order
dated 17.11.2025, and post that, there has been no change of
circumstances thereafter except for framing of charge.
8. As regards the interim order passed in the revision petition
filed by the complainant, it is submitted that the interim order
dated 13.02.2026 has recently been passed, and the applicant
may appear before this Hon'ble Court and get the revision petition
decided on merits itself. As of now, there is presently no delay in
the trial, and therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be
enlarged on bail.
9. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
10. The brief facts of the case are that complainant, Govind
Singh, lodged an FIR emphasizing therein that the applicant
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 02:06:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15318] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-3550/2026]
married his sister, Anju Kanwar, on 16.04.2019, and since then,
there had been persistent demand of dowry and acts of cruelty
meted out upon her, in spite of the fact that during the course of
marriage, they had given sufficient stridhan and dowry to the
applicant.
11. It was further alleged that post marriage in the year 2023,
again after physical assault and cruelty committed upon Anju
Kanwar, a demand of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and
gold worth Rs.5,00,000/-) was fulfilled. In spite of the same, again
on 11.07.2025, the applicant allegedly called Shiv Singh (brother
of the complainant and brother of deceased also) threatening that
he was sending his brother for collecting Rs.5,00,000/-, and in
case the same was not given, it would lead to dire consequences
upon the deceased.
12. It was further alleged that on 27.07.2025 again the applicant
assaulted Anju Kanwar, upon which Anju Kanwar called Gopal
Singh (brother of complainant and brother of Anju Kanwar)
informing with regard to the assault and cruelty being committed
for demand of dowry by the applicant. On 31.07.2025, at around
01:34 P.M., Gopal Singh received a call from the applicant
informing therein that his sister had committed suicide.
13. Based upon the FIR so submitted, the police conducted an
investigation and recorded statements of Sanju Kanwar, Govind
Singh, Gopal Singh and other independent witnesses including
Mangal Singh and Dayal Singh, residents of Ahmedabad, who
fortified the factum of cruelty meted upon deceased by the
applicant as also with regard to the persistent dowry demand
being made by the applicant. The police, thereafter, filed a
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 02:06:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15318] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-3550/2026]
chargesheet against the applicant for offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 406 & 323 IPC and 80(2), 85, 115(2) and 316(2)
of the BNS. Post that, cognizance of the offence was taken and
charges were framed by the learned trial Court.
14. A perusal of the charge-sheet and the statements on record
reveals that there is ample prima facie evidence on record, be it
statements of Sanju Kanwar (sister of deceased), Govind Singh
and Gopal Singh (brothers of deceased), Mangal Singh and Dayal
Singh (residents of Ahmedabad) and other witnesses as well as
call records between the deceased, Anju Kanwar and her brother,
on the relevant date to prima facie fortify the factum of cruelty,
demand of dowry and assault by the applicant upon the deceased
time and again as also on the relevant date. The offence in
question is also a serious offence which is clear from the charges
framed against the applicant.
15. As far as the initial inquest proceedings undertaken at
Ahmedabad are concerned, a perusal of the same will reveal that
in the inquest proceedings, the panchnama also fortified the
factum of there being certain injuries on the hand and face of
deceased, other than a ligature mark on her neck. Not only this,
the complainant had stated during the inquest proceedings that an
FIR had already been lodged and that the death of the deceased
had not occurred under normal circumstances.
16. Post rejection of the first bail application, there has been no
change in circumstances except for framing of charge and the
interim order passed in the revision filed by the complainant.
Factworth consideration is that the interim order has recently been
passed on 13.02.2026 and the same is within the knowledge of
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 02:06:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15318] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-3550/2026]
the applicant, which is clear from the averment made by the
applicant in the present bail application itself. Thus, the applicant
can very well appear before this Hon'ble Court and contest the
revision petition in hand, through his counsel and get the same
decided at the earliest.
17. In the case in hand, charges have been framed recently on
06.01.2026, and the trial has recently commenced. Merely
because further proceedings have been stayed, this Court cannot,
at this stage, come to a conclusion that the proceedings of the
trial will be delayed. Rather, the prayer made in the revision
petition filed by the complainant is with regard to adding Section
103 of BNS in the charges framed against the applicant. This itself
indicates that the complainant is actively pursuing the matter and
intends that the trial be concluded at the earliest.
18. As far as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Arvind Dham (supra) is concerned, in that case, the
very pivotal consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court was delay in
trial and long period of incarceration of 17 months and on that
basis, the Court directed the accused to be enlarged on bail,
however, in the present case, the accused was arrested in the
month of August, 2025 only and therefore, the case in hand is not
a case of prolonged incarceration of the applicant. Furthermore, in
the case of Arvind Dham (supra), the trial had been delayed for
more than 8 months, whereas in the present case, the trial has
recently commenced and it is not a case of inordinate delay in
proceeding with the trial.
19. It is no doubt true that right of speedy trial is one of the
fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 02:06:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15318] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-3550/2026]
of India and it cannot be curtailed with the consideration of the
nature of the offence. However, as far as grant of bail is
concerned, the gravity of the offence, the materials available on
record, the term of sentence prescribed for the offence etc. are
relevant considerations.
20. In the present case, there is strong prima facie material
available on record against the applicant and also considering the
gravity of offence and the punishment prescribed, the earlier bail
application was rejected as not pressed. As of now, there is no
change in circumstances except for passing of an interim order by
this Court in a revision petition filed by the complainant and
framing of charges. At the cost of repetition, it is emphasized that
it is neither a case wherein the applicant is under long
incarceration nor is a case wherein the trial has been prolonged or
is pending since long. Since the charges have been framed in the
month of January only, simply because further trial has been
stayed recently in the revision petition filed by the complainant
cannot be a ground to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage.
21. Accordingly, the present second bail application is dismissed.
22. However, the applicant is granted liberty to approach this
Court again in case the interim order passed by this Court in the
revision petition filed by the complainant continues beyond a
period of six months from today.
23. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
204-Love/-
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 02:06:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
