Maksood S/O Yakub @ Sakub Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:9797]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1563/2025

Maksood S/o Yakub @ Sakub, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Husaipur, Police Station Sikri, District Deeg, Rajasthan. (Currently In Sub Jail, Deeg, Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh Mr. Shivam Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP Mr. Ravindra Kumar

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

05/03/2025

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 378/2024 registered at Police Station Sikri, District Deeg for the offence(s) under Sections 85 and 80(2) of BNS.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accusedpetitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that initially the FIR was lodged against five persons for the offences under Sections 80(2) and 85 of BNS. Police after thorough investigation did not find commission of offences under Sections 80(2) and 85 of the BNS and charge-sheeted the petitioner for the offence under Section 108 of the BNS and rest of the other persons who were named in the FIR were exonerated. It is also

[2025:RJ-JP:9797]

[CRLMB-1563/2025]

(2 of 3)

argued that in the charge-sheet police has specifically arrived at conclusion that the dispute arose between the deceased and the petitioner, as the petitioner took away the mobile phone from his son and on this dispute petitioner slapped her wife. It is also contended that it is not a case where petitioner was continuously harassing the deceased and the deceased consumed poisonous substance. The deceased after consuming the poisonous substance was taken to nearby hospital but before reaching to hospital at Alwar deceased died. There is no evidence to the fact that soon before the death of the deceased, petitioner abetted or instigated the deceased, mere slapping or scolding cannot be taken as instigation or abatement. The marriage of the petitioner with the deceased was solemnized in the year 2018 and in between there was no such incident regarding any harassment or cruelty towards the deceased by the petitioner or his family members. The accused petitioner is in custody since 06.12.2024 and the trial of the case may take considerable time. Therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶19

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant oppose the bail application. It is contended that police has not charge-sheeted the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 85 and 80(2), however there are clear cut evidence to the fact that soon before the death of the deceased she was subjected with cruelty which resulted into her death, therefore the bail application of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

¶20

Heard and perused the material available on the record.

[2025:RJ-JP:9797]

[CRLMB-1563/2025]

(3 of 3)

Admittedly, the FIR was lodged against the petitioner and his family members alleging demand of dowry. The police after thorough investigation did not find commission of offence against the petitioner and other family members under Sections 80 and 85 of the BNS and apart from the present petitioner other four persons named in the FIR were exonerated. In the charge-sheet it is clearly stated that on 11.10.2024 petitioner took the mobile phone from his son and hot talks between the petitioner and deceased took place and in a rage petitioner slapped the deceased, thereafter deceased consumed some poisonous substance which resulted into her death, there is no evidence to the fact that prior to this incident the petitioner subjected the deceased with any cruelty, therefore considering the above facts, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Maksood S/o Yakub @ Sakub, in connection with FIR No. 378/2024 registered at Police Station Sikri, District Deeg 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 as and when called upon to do so.

¶26

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶27

ashu /51

Maksood S/O Yakub @ Sakub v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maksood S/O Yakub @ Sakub v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Komal S/O Rambhaj Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhag Singh S/O Shri Bheem Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Saraba S/O Rahman Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramraj S/O Shri Shyodas Vs State of Rajasthan

Mubin S/O Kursid Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammed Mainuddin Ansari S/O Late Shri Raju Ansari Vs State of Rajasthan