High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur disposed of a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a dowry death case. The court rejected the plea for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits.
Petitioner is not released on bail; bail application is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4206/2021
Shivkant Chodhary Son of Ramkishan, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Nagaria, Semra, P.S. Saipau District Dholpur. (Accused In District Jail, Dholpur)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Raj Tantia For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Ola, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
05/04/2021
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.116/2020 registered at Police Station Saipau, District Dholpur for the offence under Section(s) 304-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that it was not a case of dowry death. Drawing attention of this Court towards the inquest memo, learned counsel contended that cause of death therein has been assigned to injuries on the person of deceased; whereas, as per the medical opinion, it was on account of asphyxia. He, therefore, prayed for release of the petitioner on bail.
Opposing the bail application, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that deceased Sonia has suffered unnatural death
(2 of 2)
[CRLMB-4206/2021]
within 5 years of her marriage and 2.5-3 years of her “Gauna”. He submitted that from the statements of prosecution witnesses including the neighbours of the petitioner, it is apparent that the deceased was being subjected to harassment and torture by the petitioner before her death on account of demand of dowry and hence, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail.
Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsels for the respective parties, the nature and gravity of allegations against the petitioner, the contents of the charge sheet; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
The bail application is rejected accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
DANISH USMANI /08
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves bail in a case involving Section 304-B IPC allegations despite doubts raised about the nature of death.
Whether the discrepancy between the inquest memo cause of death and medical opinion warrants bail release.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Shivkant Chodhary
State Of Rajasthan
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
