Partly allowed

Smt. Rajshree Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Jul 2019CRLMB/12122/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur disposed of connected anticipatory bail applications. Bail was rejected for the complainant, Smt. Rajshree Sharma, due to specific allegations of violence and dowry demand. Conversely, anticipatory bail was allowed for her son-in-law, Vinod Kumar, and his son, Rohit, subject to the filing of a personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed for Vinod Kumar and Rohit subject to personal bond of Rs 50,000 with sureties; bail rejected for Smt. Rajshree Sharma.

Smt. Rajshree Sharma Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 729/2019

¶4

Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Madan Lal, Aged About 56 Years, B/c Brahmin , R/o House No 9/3801, Ajit Nagar Chowk , Dharmpura Extension , Gandhi Nagar , Purvi Delhi - 110031

¶5

Rohit S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar, Aged About 20 Years, B/c Brahmin , R/o House No 9/3801, Ajit Nagar Chowk , Dharmpura Extension , Gandhi Nagar , Purvi Delhi - 110031

¶6

----Petitioners Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12122/2018 Smt. Rajshree Sharma W/o Vinod Sharma Brahmin, Aged About 46 Years, H.no.3801, Street No.5, Geeta Gali, Dharmpura, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 110031

¶11

----Petitioner Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Surana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Public Prosecutor Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, for the complainant.

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶16

Judgment / Order

¶17

23/07/2019

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

[CRLMB-729/2019]

¶21

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR No.323/2018 of Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 406 IPC. They have preferred these anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations against the petitioners of demand of dowry and harassment are absolutely false. It is argued that as a matter of fact, there were some differences between complainant and her husband and on account of that, the complainant left her in-laws house and started living with her parents. It is submitted that the petitioners made repeated requests to the complainant to come to her in-laws house, which she refused and filed false FIR alleging that the petitioners harass her for the dowry. It is also submitted that the petitioners had appeared before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation on many occasions and pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 11.07.2019 also went to the police station along with Streedhan of the complainant but the complainant and her parents refused to receive the same. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, interrogation from the petitioners have also been completed, therefore, they may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶23

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and argued that the complainant in the complaint has levelled serious allegations against the petitioners of demand of dowry and constant harassment. It is submitted that the complainant in her complaint as well as the statements recorded under Section 161

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

[CRLMB-729/2019]

¶26

CrPC has specifically alleged that on one occasion, her mother-inlaw and her husband Bharat tried to smother her by putting pillow on her mouth. It is also submitted that the petitioners appeared before the Investigating Officer on 19.07.2019 along with some items but those items were not the Streedhan of the complainant and some useless items were produced, therefore, in these facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners are not entitled to be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶27

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and having gone through the case diary, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the complainant and other witnesses, during the course of their police interrogation, levelled specific allegation of demand of dowry against the husband and also levelled specific allegation of physical violence against her and her mother-in-law Smt. Rajshree Sharma, I don’t find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Smt. Rajshree Sharma W/o Vinod Sharma.

¶28

Hence, the bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner Smt. Rajshree Sharma W/o Vinod Sharma under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

¶29

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioner Vinod Kumar and Rohit, I deem it just and proper to grant them anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶30

Accordingly, the bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioners Vinod Kumar and Rohit under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Madan Lal and Rohit S/o Sh.

¶31

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-729/2019]

¶32

Vinod Kumar in FIR No.323/2018 of Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu they shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:-

¶33

(i) They shall make himself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶34

(ii) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;

¶35

(iii) They shall not leave India without the previous permission of

¶36

the court.

¶37

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶38

SURABHII/112-113-

Smt. Rajshree Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajshree Sharma 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

Manish Khilery Vs State

Bhairulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Minaxi Tak Vs State of Rajasthan

Chhotu Singh Vs State

Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan