Amit Kumar S/O Shravan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:34826]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6916/2025

Amit Kumar S/o Shravan Kumar, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Tiwari Ki Gali, Kumher Gate, Bharatpur, P.s. Kotwali Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (At Present Central Jail, Alwar).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gordhan Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

22/08/2025

¶13

This instant application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the applicant-accused Amit Kumar S/o Shravan Kumar, in FIR No. 171/2020 dated 14.08.2020 registered at P.S. Bhiwari Phase-III District - Bhiwari, whereby the applicant-accused was charged under Sections 302, 201 of IPC.

¶14

The applicant was arrested and is in judicial custody since his arrest. The Court below has dismissed the bail application.

¶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 investigation relating to present applicant-accused is complete and is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation. He further

[2025:RJ-JP:34826]

[CRLMB-6916/2025]

(2 of 3)

assures that in case, the applicant-accused is required for further investigation, and a charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant-accused. He also submits that the investigation/trial will take its own time and no purpose will be served by keeping the applicant-accused in custody. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that out of 42 witnesses, listed by prosecution, 22 were examined so far and for recording of remaining witnesses, sufficient time is still required which will result into delay in trial. He further submitted that the report is registered against unnamed person and there is no eye-witness to the incident. He further submitted that the petitioner accused is arrayed as an accused only as he is husband of deceased but the role and involvement of present petitioner is not proved from material collected by police. He further submitted that deceased having a second marriage with present petitioner and the evidence clearly indicate that she left home on her own. He also referred statement of PW-8 Vinod Kumar and submitted that Amit Kumar has not committed any crime. He also referred statement of PW-6 Krishna, PW-11 Surta Ram, PW-18 Dr. Priyanka Sharma, PW-19 Kajal, Manvi Gupta and PW-20 Hari Prasad and PW-21 Shivam and submitted that nothing came on record to implicate present petitioner in the incident.

¶20

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submitted that petitioner accused is husband of deceased. He submitted report received from P.S. Bhiwari, Phase-III.

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:34826]

[CRLMB-6916/2025]

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record.

¶25

On the basis of report dated 14.08.2020 lodged by Mustkin about recovery of a dead body of a female, the matter is investigated and after investigation a charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner accused under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Till date, 22 witnesses were examined in list of 42, submitted by police. The material on record indicate that deceased was residing with petitioner accused and all of a sudden her dead body was found and there is no missing report lodged by present petitioner. The statement of PW-6 Krishna indicate that daily she was accompanied by deceased Komal to her job and on 12.08.2020 when she went to house of Komal, then her husband petitioner accused Amit has informed he that Komal is ill and she will not go to office. Similar incident happened on 13.08.2020. The other material is available on record and the role and involvement of present petitioner is seriously in question. The petitioner accused is charged under Section 302 and 201 IPC and it is a case of very serious and heinous nature, therefore, looking to gravity of charge, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶26

Hence, the bail application preferred by petitioner accused- Amit Kumar S/o Shravan Kumar , is hereby dismissed.

¶27

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶28

CHETNA BEHRANI /36

Amit Kumar S/O Shravan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar S/O Shravan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Babal S/O Dharmpal Babal Vs State of Rajasthan

Chirag Yadav S/O Rampal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Madalla Shriniwas Son of Shri Venkatshwar Rao, Vs Union of India

Hanumanaram S/O Shri Kaushlaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Arun @ Arjun S/O Ramniwas @ Lalaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sajid Khan S/O Jumruddin Vs State of Rajasthan