Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Magan Singh S/O Late Shri Dhan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:7212) on 19 February, 2025

Author:
Ganesh Ram Meena

Bench:
Ganesh Ram Meena

[2025:RJ-JP:7212]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 2422/2025

Magan Singh S/o Late Shri Dhan Singh, Aged About 46 Years,
R/o Khatipura, Police Station Rudawal, District Bharatpur.
(Currently In Sub Jail Bayana).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Biri Singh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Harendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP
Mr. Rajneesh Gupta for complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

19/02/2025

1. This second bail application has been filed by the accused-

petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR

No.281/2024 registered at Police Station Rudawal, District

Bharatpur for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A
,
,
&
of IPC.

2. The first bail application bearing No. 11539/2024 was

dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2024

with liberty to file fresh bail application after examination of

witnesses namely; Khubiram S/o Soniya Ram, Bhagwan Dei wife

of Khubiram, Puran Singh S/o Khubiram, Nikita Kmari D/o Magan,

Priyanshi @ Bhola D/o Magan Singh and Dikshay D/o Magan Singh

on priority basis.

3. Heard.

(Downloaded on 01/03/2025 at 12:20:02 AM)

[2025:RJ-JP:7212] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2422/2025]

4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for

both the parties and also perused the charge-sheet as well as the

statement of the prosecution witnesses examined so far.

5. The father of the deceased namely; Khubi Ram Meena (PW-

2) during his examination before the trial Court has stated that

the accused-petitioner was having extra-marital affairs with some

other woman but the deceased daughter never conveyed to him

any such thing. He has also stated that the accused-petitioner has

purchased lands at Jaipur and Bharatpur. The father of the

deceased has further stated that he never tried to meet the

daughter of the deceased and very strangely said that he did not

meet them because he has no relation with them.

6. PW-3 (Bhagwan Dei) who is the mother of the deceased also

showed ignorance about the daughter of the deceased and had

only made allegation against the accused-petitioner that he has

murdered her daughter.

7. PW-4 the daughter of the deceased namely; Ms. Nikita

Kumari has not supported the prosecution story and declared

hostile. She has further stated that before death of her mother

she had some chest pain.

8. PW-5-Ms. Priyanshi, who is also the daughter of the

deceased has not supported the prosecution story and declared

hostile. In her statement she has stated that before death of her

mother (deceased), she was having complaint of chest pain.

9. PW-6-Ms. Dikshay who is also a six year daughter of the

deceased has also stated that before death the deceased (mother)

was having complaint of chest pain. She has been relied by the

prosecution though this witness has not been declared hostile.

(Downloaded on 01/03/2025 at 12:20:02 AM)

[2025:RJ-JP:7212] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2422/2025]

10. There is one more material witness PW-1 namely; Pooran

Singh who as per the version of the counsel for the petitioner and

the complainant, is a lawyer. The said witness PW-1 in his cross-

examination has stated ignorance of allegations against the co-

accused namely; Vijay, Rajveer & Amrit Lal against whom the

Police has submitted charge-sheet. Meaning-thereby, the version

of said witness is only partly supporting the prosecution story and

in such circumstances when that witness is a lawyer, his credibility

seems to be doubtful.

11. During the course of arguments it has also come that out of

the wedlock of the accused-petitioner and the deceased four girls

have born.

12. From the statements of the prosecution side i.e. father,

mother and brother of the deceased it is clear that they have

shown ignorance and no relation with the daughters of the

deceased. Meaning-thereby, it is only the accused-petitioner who

can look after those four girls.

13. The deceased has left behind her four minor girls and as per

the statements of the parents of the deceased that they do not

want to have any relation with those girls and in such

circumstances the welfare and upliftment of the girls is to be

taken up by the petitioner only.

14. Taking into consideration the period of the custody of the

petitioner and so also the welfare of the four minor girls of the

deceased and the petitioner is only the bread earner for those girls

and so also the discussion about the version of the prosecution

witnesses as stated in the above paras, this Court without

(Downloaded on 01/03/2025 at 12:20:02 AM)

[2025:RJ-JP:7212] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2422/2025]

commenting on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just

and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

15. The observations made in the foregoing paras are only for

purpose of consideration of this bail application.

16. Accordingly, this second bail application is accordingly,

allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released

on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in

the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the

satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall

appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is

transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when

called upon to do so.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
DIVYA SAINI /31

(Downloaded on 01/03/2025 at 12:20:02 AM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)