Sohan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2026 Latest Caselaw 2427 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sohan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 February, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:7882]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13047/2025

Sohan Lal S/o Nand Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Dhareshwar,
P.s. Kanera, District Chittorgarh (At Present Lodged At Sub Jail
Nimbahera, Dist. Chittorgarh)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Abhishek Charan.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Hanuman Prajapat, PP



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

Conclusion of Arguments & Reserved on : 11/02/2026 Pronounced on : 13/02/2026

1. This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 483 of BNSS (old Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) in connection

with FIR No.2/2025 dated 06.01.2025, Police Station Kanera,

District Chittorgarh for the offence under Section 80(2) of BNS-

2023. After filing challan, offences under Sections 85 and 103(1)

of BNS have been added.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner

has been falsely implicated in the present case based on

circumstantial evidence. As a matter of fact, he was not present at

the time when petitioner's wife committed suicide. However,

merely considering the fact that petitioner's wife committed

suicide within one year of marriage and false allegation of dowry

demand, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case.

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 01:28:43 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7882] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13047/2025]

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the statement

of PW-4, deceased's brother, who stated that there is no custom of

taking dowry in their community, submitted that the allegation of

dowry demand by the present petitioner becomes highly doubtful.

2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to the

statement of PW-8 Bhooralal, who stated that petitioner was in his

agriculture field on the date of incident. He also referred to the

statement of PW-10 Brajesh Singh, witness to the arrest

proceedings of the petitioner, who stated that he has not noticed

any injury or abrasion, which could in any manner connect the

present petitioner in committing the crime.

2.2 As a matter of fact, the petitioner himself surrendered before

the police. This fact also indicates that the petitioner never

attempted to flee from the place of the incident or at a later stage.

He also submitted that the cause of injury has been reported to be

strangulation by using a blanket, which is highly improbable,

considering its size, that the petitioner could have strangulated

the deceased with a blanket. The petitioner is in judicial custody

since 06.01.2025.

Based on the above submissions, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on

bail.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed

this bail application and submitted that the petitioner is the sole

accused in the present crime. The incident has occurred within one

year of marriage; petitioner & his wife alone were separately

residing; and there is specific allegation of dowry demand levelled

by the parents of the deceased. The investigating agency after

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 01:28:43 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7882] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13047/2025]

thorough investigation has concluded that it is the petitioner, who

has strangulated the deceased. He also submitted that out of 21

witnesses, 12 witnesses have already been examined in short

span of time, which further indicates that the trial is proceeding

with full speed. Therefore, the petitioner may not be enlarged on

bail.

4. Having considered the rival submissions made by the parties

so also the charge-sheet and considering the statements recorded

so far and considering the fact that the petitioner is sole accused

so also out of 21 witnesses, 12 witnesses have already been

examined, which further indicates that the trial is also being

conducted at a reasonably good pace, this Court is not inclined to

enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

5. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.

(SUNIL BENIWAL),J Rmathur/-

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 01:28:43 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)