Allowed

Ashok Kumar @ Chhigan Son of Shri Chhitarmal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Apr 2023CRLMB/38/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court deems it just and proper to grant bail to the accused-petitioner, who has been in jail since October 2022, pending the conclusion of a lengthy trial involving offences of suicide murder and cruelty, as serious charges were not proved.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner released on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Ashok Kumar @ Chhigan Son of Shri Chhitarmal Vs… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.38/2023

¶3

Ashok Kumar @ Chhigan Son Of Shri Chhitarmal, Aged 26 Years, Resident of Devando Ki Dhani Khachariyawas Police Station Dantaramgarh District Sikar, At Present In District Jail Sikar.

¶4

----Accused Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Harendra Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor. Mr.Sanjay Khedar, Adv. for Complainant.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶10

Order

¶11

13/04/2023

¶12

This application for bail has been filed by the accusedpetitioner under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.386/2022 registered at Police Station Dantaramgarh, District Sikar, for the offences under Sections 498A and 304-B IPC.

¶13

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that initially in this case, FIR was lodged for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 304B IPC. After investigation offence under Section 306 has been made out against the accused-petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, no case under Sections 498-A and 304B IPC has been made out.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that admittedly on the date of crime the accused-petitioner who is the husband of the deceased was in Assam. Learned counsel further

¶15

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-38/2023]

¶16

argued that the deceased had telephonic conversation with the husband and in the charge sheet also it has been mentioned that after the said telephonic conversation, the deceased has committed suicide.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the chargesheet for the offence under Section 306 IPC has been filed against the accused petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased.

¶18

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner contended that the accused-petitioner was arrested on 12.10.2022 since then, he is behind the bars.

¶19

Learned counsel further contended that the deceased wanted to go at the fair of Jeen Mata Temple but the accusedpetitioner over telephonic conversation with deceased, did not permit her to go there, therefore, the deceased has committed suicide. Learned counsel further argued that this fact has been specifically mentioned in the chargesheet filed against the accused-petitioner.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there has been family dispute between the accused and family of the deceased thus, the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and as such, the accused-petitioner may be given benefit of bail.

¶21

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the misc. bail application.

¶22

Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that death of the deceased has happened in unnatural circumstances

¶23

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-38/2023]

¶24

and, therefore, looking to the seriousness of the offence, the accused-petitioner should not be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that offence alleged under Section 304-B and 498A is not proved against the accused petitioner, the accused-petitioner is behind the bars since 12.10.2022 and conclusion of trial will take long time, but 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.

¶26

Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The accused-petitioner—Ashok Kumar @ Chhigan Son Of Shri Chhitarmal arrested in connection with FIR No.386/2022 registered at Police Station Dantaramgarh, District Sikar shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Accused-petitioner shall be required to appear before that Court on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶27

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR), J

¶28

Himanshu Soni/59

Ashok Kumar @ Chhigan Son of Shri Chhitarmal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar @ Chhigan Son of Shri Chhitarmal 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

Amit S/O Shri Vijendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Mangal Chand S/O Shri Gopal Vs State of Rajasthan

Madan Lal Son of Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Roop Singh S/O Kishanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajkumar @ Monu S/O Dulichand Vs State of Rajasthan

Omprakash S/O Bhawarlal Vs State of Rajasthan