Allowed

Pawan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Jul 2019CRLMB/8445/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur considered the petitioner's fourth bail application in a case involving dowry-related murder charges. Finding that the deceased's parents' statements did not substantiate dowry demands and noting family arrangements for the children, the court deemed it just and proper to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Dowry and Cruelty | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶2

*******

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IVth Bail Application No. 8445/2019

¶4

Pawan Kumar S/o Ram Pratap, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Vishnoi, r/o Near Cine Magic Cinema, Road No. 5 Gangashahr. Distt. Bikaner.

¶5

(At Present Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner).

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan.

----Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr. Nishant Bora. For Respondent : Mr. R.R.Chhaparwal, PP for the State. Mr. J.S.Choudhary, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudahry for the complainant.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

22/07/2019

¶14

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.124/2016 of Police Station Mahila Thana, Bikaner District Bikaner for the offence punishable under Sections 498 (A), 304 (B), 302 & 120 (B) IPC.

¶15

He has preferred this IVth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after rejection of the third bail application on 24.07.2018 by this Court.

¶16

It is submitted that after rejection of the third bail application on 24.07.2018, the statement of mother of the deceased Santosh (PW9) has been recorded by the learned trial court.

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMB-8445/2019]

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this court to the entire statements including the statement of PW9 Santosh (mother of the deceased) and PW3 Shrawan (father of the deceased) and submits there is no allegation of dowry much less soon before the death. He further submits that five daughters of the petitioner’s family have been married to the family of the deceased. The counsel further submits that even the marriage of the present petitioner was also an ‘Atta-Satta’ marriage. It is submitted that in the statement of father of the deceased (PW3), he stated that his daughter used to tell that they have got enough money but at the same time, agonies were also there on the same footing.

¶20

It is contended that the statements of mother and father (PW9 & PW3) of the deceased at least depict that the harassment was not on account of demand of dowry. The counsel further contends that two kids are also staying in the family of the petitioner and are being looked after by his grandparents. Not only this, in six years, maternal grandparents have not even bothered to come and look after the well being of the two kids. The counsel submits that trial will take long time to conclude as there are 26 witnesses in the matter out of which only 12 witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner may be released on bail.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶22

Considering the fact that allegation of demand of dowry is not getting substantiated from the statement of mother and father (PW9 & PW3) of the deceased and the fact that the kids are staying in the family of the petitioner being looked after by the

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLMB-8445/2019]

¶25

grandparents, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶26

Accordingly, the 4^nd bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner -Pawan Kumar S/o Ram Pratap shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.124/2016 of Police Station Mahila Thana, Bikaner District Bikaner provided he 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 learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶27

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶28

13-Anil Singh/-

Pawan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar 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

Bhanwar Lal Vs Badri Lal and Ors.

Gopal Lal Vs Badri Lal and Ors.

Smt.Bhuri Bai and Ors. Vs Bajaj Allianz G.I.C.Ltd. and Ors.

Pappu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Manoj Vs State of Rajasthan

Geeta Devi Vs State of Rajasthan