Durgesh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:16329)
2026 Latest Caselaw 5328 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Durgesh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:16329) on 8 April, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:16329]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4203/2026

Durgesh S/o Rajmal, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Naiyon
Ka Mohalla, Kapasan, Thana Kapasan, District Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan.
(Presently Lodged At Sub Jail Mavli, Udaipur)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Gaurav Singh
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

08/04/2026

The instant 2nd 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              Kapasan
   3.     District                    Chittorgarh

4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Section 80(2) of BNS.

5. Offences added, if any -

The 1st bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner i.e.

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12207/2025 was dismissed

by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2025 as not pressed with a

liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording

of statement of Bherulal (father) and Pushpa (mother of the

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 05:45:47 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16329] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4203/2026]

deceased). After rejection of 1st bail application, statements of

aforesaid witnesses have been recorded as PW-4 and PW-6

respectively, hence, this 2nd bail application has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this case. It is contended that PW-6

- Pushpa (mother of deceased) in her cross-examination, herself

admitted that there was no quarrel between the petitioner and the

deceased and they were living happily. PW-4 - Bherulal also

admitted that he was not aware of any quarrel between the

petitioner and the deceased.

The cross-examination in statement of Pushpa (PW-6) reads

as under:-

"vUuq dh lxkbZ nxsZ"k ds lkFk lky Hkj jgh FkhA lxkbZ gksus ds vkSj "kknh gksus ds lky nks lky rd dqN Hkh fookn ugha FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd bu nks lkyksa vUuq ds llqjky okyksa }kjk fdlh Hkh izdkj dh dksbZ ekax ugha dh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vUuq dh "kknh ds le; geus vUuq ds dksbZ jdes ugha p<+kbZ Fkh dsoy gFkysok esa pknh ds ik;tso fn;s FksA vUuq ds llqjky okyksa us mlds lksus dh jdM+h] lksus dk gkj] dku Nqefd;k] pkanh dk danksjk pkanh ds ik;tsc vkfn p<+k;s FksA vUUkq ds llqjky okyksa us tks jdes p<+KbZ Fkh muds out vkSj vuqekfur dher ds ckjs esa eq>s irk ugha gSA eSaus tks lkr yk[k #i;s ekaxus okyh ckr crkbZ oks gekjs iwjs ifjokj ls ekax dh FkhA lkr yk[k #i;s dh ekax fdl rkjh[k fdl eghus fdl lky esa dh Fkh ;g eSa ugha crk ldrh u gh vkt eq>s ;kn gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd geus ;k vUuq us mlds llqjky okyksa }kjk mDRk lkr yk[k #i;s ekaxus ds lanHkZ esa dksbZ f"kdk;r ;k fjiksVZ ugha nh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vUuq tc ihgj vkrh Fkh rks tekbZ nqxsZ"k mls ckj ckj ysus ds fy;s vkrk FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd esjk tekbZ nqxZs"k gj ckj dgrk Fkk fd vUuq dks esjs lkFk Hkst nks bl ij ge Hkst nsrs FksA vUuq ds vkSj tekbZ ds chp dksbZ >xM+k ugha gqvk FkkA ;g eSa ugha crk ldrh dh vUuq vkSj nqxsZ"k tekbZ tc rhu pkj eghus vyx iqjkus edku esa jg jgs Fks rc buds chp dksbZ yM+kbZ >xM+k Fkk vFko ugha D;ksafd eSa ogka ugha jgrh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vUuq eq>s fdlh izdkj ds yM+kbZ >xM+s ds ckjs esa ugha crkrh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vUuq tc vyx jgrh Fkh rc eSa mlls iwNrh Fkh rks og dgrh Fkh fd og jkth[kq"kh gS og i<+kus vkrh tkrh jgrh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd 12 Qjojh 2025 dks vUuq feyus vk;h Fkh vkSj jkth[kq"kh vk;h Fkh vkSj jkth[kq"kh x;h FkhA vUuq us eq>ls ;s t:j dgk Fkk esjk Qksu [kjkc gks x;k mldks lgh djus ds fy;s 1000 #i;s pkfg, tks ysdj pyh x;h FkhA 13 rkjh[k dks esjh vUuq ls dksbZ ckr ugha gq;h

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 05:45:47 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16329] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-4203/2026]

Lo;a dgka fd "kke dks ikap cts llqjky ?kj ij igqpadj dgk Fkk fd eSa ?kj ij igqap x;h gw vkSj dksbZ ckr ugha gq;hA fnukad 14-02-2025 dks esjh vUuq ls lqcg ckr gq;h FkhA rc vUuq us eq>s dsoy ;g dgk Fkk fd eEeh vkt dSls gks eSa rks Bhd gwa mlds ckn Qksu dV x;kA mlds ckn esjh vUuq ls dksbZ ckr ugha gq;hA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vUuq us eq>s fdlh Hkh izdkj ds dksbZ yM+kbZ >xMs dh ckr ugha crk;h FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd vUuq dh jdesa gekjs ikl iM+h gq;h gksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vUuq ds nsoj dh "kknh ds le; vUuq dh lHkh jdesa mldks iguus ds fy;s ns nh FkhA ;g eSa ugh crk ldrh dh vUuq dh "kknh ds fdrus le; ckn rd vUuq dh jdesa gekjs ikl iM+h Fkh Lo;a dgk fd vUuq ds jdes geus j[kh Hkh ughaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ge vUuq dks mldh jdesa mlds lkekftd dk;Zdze esa iguus ds fy;s ugha nsrs gks vkSj gekjs ikl j[kh gksA LVkai ij fy[kk i<+h esa eSa ugha x;hA ;g dguk lgh gS fd lkou dh "kknh esa vUuq jkth[kq"kh Fkh blfy;s ge Hkh diM+s ysdj x;s FksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd "kknh dh eku euokj gsrq jktey th gekjs ?kj vk;s FksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ml le; rd dksbZ yM+kbZ >xM+k ugha FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd esjh csVh dh eqR;q gksus ls gekjs ;s eqndes ckth gq;h ckdh gekjs chp dksbZ ckr ugha gq;hA"

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner; statements of

only six witnesses have been recorded out of 27 witnesses; the

petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.03.2025 and

looking to the pace of the trial, it seems that the trial will take

sufficiently long time to conclude, therefore, the 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 allegations levelled

against the petitioner, he may not be enlarged on bail. However,

he admits that PW-6 - Pushpa (mother of the deceased) submitted

that there was no quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased

and the fact that PW-4 - Bherulal (father) was also not aware

about any quarrel between them.

Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and

circumstances of the case as well as perused the material

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 05:45:47 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16329] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-4203/2026]

available on record; considering the statements of PW-4 - Bherulal

(father) and PW-6 - Pushpa (mother of the deceased; statements

of only 6 witnesses have been recorded out of 27 witnesses and

the trial of the case will take significant 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.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- 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 77-Ramesh/-

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 05:45:47 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)