Dismissed

Vikas Malav S/O Shri Mahaveer Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Aug 2025CRLMB/6424/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the bail application of an accused facing charges under Section 80(2) of BNS for allegedly causing the death of a woman by a moving train. The court found that the case was not fit for bail and dismissed the application under Section 483 of BNSS.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vikas Malav S/O Shri Mahaveer Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:34813]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6424/2025

¶4

Vikas Malav S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Kalyanpura, P.s. Simliya, District Kota (Raj.). (Accused At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Samarth Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Surendra Sharma
	Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP
	Mr. Rajesh Dhaka RPS, CO- Kota
	Rural,Kota

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

18/08/2025

¶13

This bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 by the applicant-accused Vikas Malav S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad in connection with FIR No. 25/2025, dated 18.02.2025, registered at Police Station Simliya, District Kota Rural for offences under Sections 80(2) of BNS.

¶14

The applicant is arrested and has been in judicial custody since then. A bail application was moved before the learned Court below; however, the same was dismissed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant relying upon grounds raised in bail application submits that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. Further, he submits that the

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:34813]

[CRLMB-6424/2025]

investigation relating to present applicant-accused is complete and is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation. He also submits that the trial will take its own time and no purpose will be served by keeping the applicants-accused in custody.

¶20

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the facts of the case clearly indicate that deceased has committed suicide by deliberately jumping in front of moving train and after the death inquest report No. 01/2025 was registered, wherein statement of locopilot Ramdas and Praveen was recorded who clearly stated that a female suddenly came in front of moving train and she was ran over. He pointed out that the allegations in the complaint indicate that after murder of deceased, the applicant accused has thrown her body in front of train. He further submits that there is no allegation of demand of dowry or cruelty when statement of relatives of deceased were recorded soon after the death. He further submits that herein this case, the allegation is only having an affair or relation with a girl and during investigation, the complainant and his witnesses have made improvements and alleged demand of dowry and cuelty for non-fulfillment. He further submits that the twisting of facts clearly indicate that the case is false and this applicant is implicated in false case. He also referred statement of witnesses Narendra Malav and others and submits that the improvement in their versions is available on record to show that to implicate present applicant accused the story has been changed by complainant. He also referred the material on record and submits that as per allegation on 10.01.2025, the

[2025:RJ-JP:34813]

[CRLMB-6424/2025]

(3 of 4)

deceased had had a call with her mother, but no such call detail or information was given on time which doubts the claim by complainant. He further referred the statement of Sakshi and Sulochna and submits that deceased was annoyed and perturbed due to due to link of applicant-accused with a girl named by them. At last, he submits that this applicant-accused is in custody since his arrest.

¶25

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant.

¶26

Learned counsel for complainant has referred inquest report and submits that applicant-accused has demanded ₹15,00,000/as dowry from relatives of deceased and non-fulfillment of demand of ₹15 lacs she was pressurized and harasssed. He also referred issue of illicit relation between present applicant and a girl named in charge-sheet and submits that present applicant got distracted from deceased. He also referred the statement recorded by police and submits that the allegations are proved and same is subject-matter of trial.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused along with learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 8. On basis of inquest report No. 01/25 about running over of deceased by a moving train, an FIR is registered and after investigation a charge-sheet has been filed against applicantaccused. We have considered the statement of witnesses as referred by learned counsels for the parties and also perused the material particularly the allegations made in the statement by

¶28

[CRLMB-6424/2025]

¶29

[2025:RJ-JP:34813] (4 of 4)

¶30

witnesses. The applicant-accused is in custody since 17.03.2025 and we have also considered statement of bank account of Mahaveer submitted by learned counsel for applicant.

¶31

Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case particularly the material on record, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to enlarge applicantaccused on bail.

¶32

in view of discussion made hereinabove, the bail application preferred under Section 483 of BNSS by applicant- Vikas Malav

¶33

S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad is hereby dismissed.

¶34

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶35

MONU /71

Vikas Malav S/O Shri Mahaveer Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vikas Malav S/O Shri Mahaveer Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit S/O Chetram Vs State of Rajasthan

Prakash Chand Meena S/O Kaluram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanjay S/O Lakhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashish Kumar Saini S/O Shri Rakesh Kumar Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Kumar Meena S/O Tikaram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Roshanlal Meena S/O Narayan Meena Vs State of Rajasthan