Kapil Kumar S/O Kurdaram Vs State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:6201]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1214/2026

Kapil Kumar S/o Kurdaram, aged about 32 Years, R/o Dhatarwala Ka Baas, Tan Ojatu, Police Station Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (At present confined at District Jail, Jhunjhunu)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1215/2026 Meena Kumari W/o Late Randeep Saharan D/o Vikram Singh, aged about 32 Years, R/o Ajadi Khurd, currently residing at Nunia Gothda, P.S. Baggad, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (At present confined at Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶10

----Petitioner

¶11

	Versus
State of Rajasthan,	through PP ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Shovit Jhajharia
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Karamveer with Mr. Vijay Punia Mr. Mangilal Meena, C.I., SHO, P.S. Sadar,Jhunjhunu.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order

¶13

10/02/2026

¶14

These bail applications have been filed by the accusedpetitioners under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with F.I.R. No.131/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu, for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 108 of B.N.S.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that accused Meena Kumari W/o deceased (Late Randeep Saharan), was allegedly having illicit

[2026:RJ-JP:6201]

[CRLMB-1214/2026]

(2 of 3)

relations with the other co-accused Kapil Kumar and on account of such relationship, the deceased was under mental stress and consequently, committed suicide. After investigation, an offence of abetment of suicide has been found to be made out against the accused-petitioners under Section 108 of B.N.S.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have nothing to do with the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that the ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out in the present case, as there is no material available on record to show that the petitioners instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel also submits that in the FIR, it is mentioned that the deceased left behind a suicide note, which as per the FSL report has been confirmed to be in the handwriting of the deceased.

¶21

Learned counsel further submits that one of the petitioners namely, Meena Kumari is a woman and has a girl child to look after; both the petitioners are in custody since 08.12.2025 and charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter. Learned counsel also submits that no recovery is required to be made from the petitioners and trial will considerably take long time in its conclusion, so no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody, therefore, the benefit of bail under Section 483 B.N.S.S. may be granted to the petitioners.

¶22

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the bail applications. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the

(3 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:6201]

[CRLMB-1214/2026]

investigation has not been conducted in a proper manner and it is not a case of suicide but of murder, however, admits the fact that the suicide note is in the handwriting of the deceased.

¶27

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, material available on record in the form of charge-sheet and the fact that investigation has already completed and trial will take considerably long time in its conclusion, thus, without commenting anything on the merits / demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶28

Therefore, the bail applications under Section 483 B.N.S.S. are allowed and the accused-petitioners, namely Kapil Kumar S/o Kurdaram and Meena Kumari W/o Late Randeep Saharan D/o Vikram Singh are ordered to be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, with the stipulation that the petitioners shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when he is called upon to do so.

¶29

(SANDEEP TANEJA),J

¶30

33 & 34/-DHARMENDRA RAKHECHA

Kapil Kumar S/O Kurdaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Kumar S/O Kurdaram 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

Rohit Nagar S/O Nandkishore Vs State of Rajasthan

Arbaj Khan Son of Usman Vs State of Rajasthan

Arshad Ali Khan S/O Mohammad Miya Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan

Shiva S/O Shri Mohan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rizwan S/O Mosin Vs State of Rajasthan

Meena Kumari W/O Late Randeep Saharan D/O Vikram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan