Allowed

Smt. Aruna Devi W/O Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Sept 2021CRLMB/8245/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed bail to Smt. Aruna Devi under Section 439 Cr.P.C. She was arrested under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. Relying on a coordinate bench's order in behalf of her husband, the court granted bail due to the non-distinguishable nature of her case.

What did the court decide?

Personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each to appear before the trial court.

Smt. Aruna Devi W/O Shri Rajendra Prasad… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8245/2021

¶3

Smt. Aruna Devi W/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Hasni Ward No. 17 Surajgarh Ps Surajgarh Dist. Jhuhjhunu Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman with Mr. Sushil Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP Mr. Subhash Sharma

¶8

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶9

Order

¶10

27/09/2021

¶11

In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

¶12

This Court perused the material available on record.

¶13

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.49/2021 of Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC. She has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order dated 23.07.2021 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CRLMB No.11530/2021 (Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan), wherein following order has been passed:

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMB-8245/2021]

¶17

"1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶18

2. F.I.R. No. 49/2021 was registered at Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu(Raj.) for offences under Sections 498 and 304-B of IPC.

¶19

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is father-in-law of deceased. He was staying separately from her son and daughter-in-law. It is contended that two suicide notes have been recovered in which there is allegation that a sum of Rs.10 lac was paid to the family members of the petitioner by family members of deceased. It is also contended that the father of deceased had expired much prior to the marriage. There is no allegation in the FIR that a sum of Rs.10 lac was paid by the family members of the deceased which goes to show that wrong fact has been mentioned in the suicide note. It is further contended that from the investigation done by the police, police has come to the conclusion that deceased has committed suicide and that there was some family dispute and same was the reason for committing suicide. It is contended that brother of deceased is labourer and petitioner is aged 68 years and does farming.

¶20

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. It is contended that it is a general presumption that a dying person never tells a lie. The deceased in her suicide note has specifically mentioned that there was a demand by father-in-law and mother-in-law and a sum of Rs.10 lac was paid to them. She has also mentioned that she was poisoned.

¶21

5. I have considered the contentions.

¶22

6. Considering the fact that petitioner is aged 68 years, that there is no allegation in the FIR that a sum of Rs.10 lac was paid, the fact that the marriage took place during the lockdown period and that petitioner is suffering from nasal bleeding, the documents for which have been submitted, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶23

7. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CRLMB-8245/2021]

¶26

shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so."

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even by reading the suicide note, the mother-in-law and father-in-law (Rajendra Prasad) are on the same pedestal.

¶28

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

¶29

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that Rajendra Prasad, the father-in-law has already been granted bail and the case of the present petitioner (mother-in-law) is not distinguishable and conclusion of the proceedings is likely to take some time and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶30

Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Smt. Aruna Devi W/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.49/2021 of Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu provided she executes 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 her appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶31

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶32

12-Skant/Zeeshan

Smt. Aruna Devi W/O Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Aruna Devi W/O Shri Rajendra Prasad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mtm Employees Co-Operative Thrift and C.S Vs the O.L. M/S Mewar Textiles and Anr.

Mtm Employees Staff Consumer Co-Operati Vs the O.L. M/S Mewar Textiles and Anr.

Sunil Kamra Vs State

Krishanram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh S/O Shri Laxman Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Yadav S/O Pooran Mal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan