Allowed

Rahul Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Vasudev Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Apr 2025CRLMB/14334/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan enlarged the accused-petitioner on bail under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in a matrimonial death case, noting the trial may take considerable time and relying on the preliminary witness statement.

What did the court decide?

The accused-petitioner shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Rahul Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Vasudev Yadav Vs State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:14646]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14334/2024

¶4

Rahul Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Vasudev Yadav, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Jaichhapra, Tehsil Bahuwara, Police Station Dokti, District Baliya, Uttar Pradesh, Presently Tenant Of House No. B/1, Gali No. A-5, Kumawat Colony, Jhotwara. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur, District Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Poonia, PP For Complainant : Mr. Abhishek B. Sharma, Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

01/04/2025

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.505/2024, registered at Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur (West), for the offence(s) under Section 80(2) of B.N.S.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accusedpetitioner has falsely been implicated for the offences under Sections 85 and 80(2) of B.N.S. It is argued that the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased was solemnized on 07.05.2019, deceased died due to hanging on 30.07.2024, the FIR was lodged on 31.07.2024. The accused-petitioner was arrested on 05.09.2024, the petitioner is serving in Indian Army at Kupwada,

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:14646]

[CRLMB-14334/2024]

at the relevant time. It is also contended that PW.4-Harendra (father of the deceased) in his cross-examination has clearly stated that no money was transferred in the account of the petitioner’s from the year 2019 to 2024. He has also stated that the petitioner did not demand any dowry from the year 2019 to 2024, in the examination-in-chief PW.4-Harendra (father of the deceased) has stated that he has given Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner’s brother Neeraj Kumar and Neeraj Kumar returned Rs.2,00,000/- out of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is also contended that initially, the FIR was lodged against the accused-petitioner and the entire family members of the accused-petitioner. The police did not find the commission of offence against the accused-petitioner and his family members and they were not chargesheeted. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 05.09.2024 and the trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the grant of bail application. It is contended that PW.4-Harendra, who is father of the deceased in his examination-in-chief has clearly stated that the accused-petitioner and his family members demanded money from him and he paid Rs.3,00,000/- to them. The deceased died in her husband’s house and at that time the petitioner was present, therefore, considering the above facts the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed.

¶20

Heard and perused the material available on the record.

¶21

It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case. Considering the arguments forwarded by the learned counsel

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:14646]

[CRLMB-14334/2024]

for the petitioner and looking to the statement of PW.4 Harendra (father of the deceased) and the trial of the case may take considerable time, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶26

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Rahul Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Vasudev Yadav, in connection with FIR No.505/2024, registered at Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur (West), shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶27

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶28

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-44

Rahul Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Vasudev Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Vasudev Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Kashyap S/O Sundarlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivam @ Shubham S/O Kanhaiya Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ishwar Singh Jakhar S/O Shri Ram Ratan Vs the State of

Mahendra S/O Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhupendra Singh S/O Shri Amar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravi Mahawar S/O Panna Lal Vs State of Rajasthan