Allowed

Rakesh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Nov 2023CRLMB/11542/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a second bail application for an accused charged under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 304-B IPC following the suicide of his wife due to alleged dowry harassment. The Court found no conclusive material of cruelty immediately prior to death authorized bail subject to personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.37/2023 by furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Rakesh Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:37815]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 11542/2023

¶4

Rakesh S/o Mani Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bodigama Chota Police Thana Sabla Dist. Dungarpur (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Sagwara Dist. Dungarpur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Jitendra Ojha.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Arun Kumar,P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

ORDER

¶12

04/11/2023

¶13

This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.37/2023 registered at Police Station Sabla, District Dungarpur, for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per prosecution, the marriage of the deceased – Laxmi was solemnized with the present petitioner on 13.12.2021. On 12.3.2023, the deceased – Laxmi committed suicide by consuming acid. Learned counsel submitted that the complainant submitted a written report before police stating inter-alia that the deceased – Laxmi was meted out with cruelty and harassment at the hands of the petitioner and his family members in connection with dowry demand.

[2023:RJ-JD:37815]

[CRLMB-11542/2023]

(2 of 4)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statements of the complainant have been recorded before competent criminal court as PW-2, wherein the witness during cross-examination has stated that no dowry was demanded by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant during cross-examination has also stated that about 8 - 10 days prior to the date of incident, he had a telephonic conversation with her daughter wherein she had not mentioned the factum of she being subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry by the present petitioner. To substantiate this contention, attention of the Court was drawn towards the following cross-examination of the complainant (PW-2), which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

¶19

“ftjg }kjk vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls%& eSa d{kk 08 rd i<k fy[kk gqaA ;g lgh gSa fd izih04 esjh gLrfyfi ugh gSa] esjh yMdh dfork us fy[kh gSaA ;g dguk xyr gSa fd iqfyl ds dgs vuqlkj fjiksVZ dfork us fy[kh gksA esjh iq=h dks djhc 15&20 fnu rd gh “kknh ckn vPNk j[kkA ;g lgh gSa fd esjh iq=h ds izsXusaV gksus ds 15&20 fnu ckn esjs tekbZ dqosr pys x, FksA ;g lgh gSa fd esjh iq=h dks mldk ifr o mldh lkl izrkfMr djrs Fks ;k ekjihV djrs Fks] bl ckcr eSus iqfyl Fkkus esa bl ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ ls iwoZ dksbZ fjiksVZ ugh nh Fkh vkSj u gh esjh iq=h us mlds ifr o lkl ds fo:) fjiksVZ nh FkhA ;g lgh gSa fd esjh iq=h ls bl ?kVuk ls iwoZ 8&10 fnu iwoZ ckr gqbZ Fkh] blds ckn esjs esjh iq=h ls dksbZ ckr ugha gqbZ FkhA ;g lgh gSa fd esjh iq=h ds mDr ?kVuk esa “kjhj ds ckgjh dksbZ pksV ugh vkbZ FkhA ;g lgh gSa fd esjh iq=h dh lkl us ?kVuk dh tkudkjh esjh NksVh iq=h dfork dks nh FkhA ;g lgh gS fd ge lh/ks gh thy gkLihVy lkxokMk iagqps FksA ;g lgh gSa fd esjh iq=h dks esjs tekbZ us thy gkWLihVy es HkrhZ djk;k Fkk vkSj muds lkFk es muds ifjokj es esjh iq=h dh lkl o tsB ftrsUnz o eatq rsyh lkFk Fks] dkark ifRu je.kyky lkFk gks rks eq>s ugh irkA ;g lgh gSa fd ngst ds fy, izrkfMr djrs Fks] ,slk fjiksVZ izih04 es ugh fy[kk gSaA ;g lgh gSa fd esjs vgenkckn ls vkus ls iwoZ esjh iq=h dh ns[kjs[k esjs tekbZ o mldh lkl dj jgs FksA ;g lgh gSa fd esjh iq=h ds fookg ds le; ngst dh dksbZ ekax ugh dh FkhA”

¶20

On the strength of these submissions, learned counsel

¶21

submitted that the allegation of subjecting the deceased to cruelty

[2023:RJ-JD:37815]

[CRLMB-11542/2023]

(3 of 4)

and harassment in connection with dowry demand, is absolutely false and the deceased was never meted out with ill treatment by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶26

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶28

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, FIR, challan papers and the statements of the complainant (PW-2), this Court prima facie finds that there is no conclusive material available on record indicating that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry demand by the petitioner soon before her death. This Court also prima facie finds that since the statements of the complainant have already been recorded before competent criminal court and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of petitioner influencing the remaining prosecution witnesses, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶29

Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Rakesh S/o Mani Lal shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.37/2023 registered at Police Station Sabla, District Dungarpur, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the

¶30

[2023:RJ-JD:37815] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11542/2023]

¶31

satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to so.

¶32

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

¶33

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶34

/tarun goyal/ Sr.No.5

Rakesh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh 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

Heera Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhagal Singh @ Arjun Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Thathera Vs State of Rajasthan