Allowed

Saddam Hussain v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC31 Oct 2023CRLMB/6339/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to the petitioner charged with murder and dowry death. The Court noted the trial would be lengthy as only 9 of 28 prosecution witness statements were recorded. It observed gaps in forensic evidence and phone records but did not decide the merits of the criminal charges.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/ and two sureties of Rs.25,000/ each.

Saddam Hussain Vs State of Rajasthan — Dowry and Cruelty | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:36509]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6339/2023

¶4

Saddam Hussain S/o Faizu Khan, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Musalman R/o Dhanipura P.S. Thawla Dist. Nagaur Raj. (At Present Lodged In Parbatsar Jail Nagaur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Om Prakash Joshi
	Mr. Karan Joshi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shrawan Kumar,P.P.
For Complainant	: Mr. Vishal Sharma

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

31/10/2023

¶13

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.184/2020, registered at Police Station Thawla, District Nagaur, for offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 IPC. As per prosecution, the complainant (father of the deceased), submitted a written report before PS Thawla, Nagaur, stating inter alia that niqah of his daughter took place with the present petitioner on 25.05.2014. It was averred in the written report that the petitioner and his family members used to harass the deceased both mentally and physically for demand of dowry with specific demands for amount of Rs.2 lacs and a car. The deceased did not reveal the factum of harassment being meted out to her by the petitioner and his family members, to her family members because of her young

[2023:RJ-JD:36509]

[CRLMB-6339/2023]

(2 of 6)

daughter aged about two years. About 17 months prior to the date of alleged incident, the deceased with her daughter came to her matrimonial home as she faced grave threat to her and her daughter’s life. However, the people in the village along with the families of the petitioner and the deceased resolved the issues through local panchayati , wherein it was decided that from then on, the petitioner and his family members would not make demands for dowry and harass the deceased.

¶18

It is further stated in the written report that on 11.10.2020, when the petitioner reached his house, he started hurling abuses at the deceased and told the deceased that since you have not been able to fulfill the dowry demands of bringing Rs.2 lacs and a car, he is going to kill her where after, the petitioner started beating the deceased. The deceased, in order to save herself, rushed to a room and locked the room from inside. The deceased made a telephonic call to her father and narrated the whole incident to him. It was further stated in the written report that after the phone call, the deceased came out of the room, believing the word of the petitioner that he would not cause any further harm to her but, the petitioner tried to attack the deceased, who ran from the house for about 100 meters and was, inflicted a head injury upon the deceased with an iron rod, held by him. On receiving the blow on the head, the deceased fell to the ground whereafter, the petitioner stabbed her in the stomach. She was then taken to the hospital, where she was declared dead.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that admittedly there is not a single eye

(3 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JD:36509]

[CRLMB-6339/2023]

witness of the incident which allegedly happened in broad day light in a thickly populated residential colony and only 100 meters away from the house of the present petitioner. It was therefore submitted that the whole prosecution story has been built on the basis of surmises and conjectural theories.

¶24

Learned counsel further submitted that the case against the petitioner solely rests on circumstantial evidence. It was vehemently contended that the circumstances available against the petitioner are not cogent enough to implicate the petitioner in the present case. To strengthen the above made submission, learned counsel argued that the recoveries of the iron rod and knife, allegedly used in commission of crime have been recovered almost after three months and admittedly, the weapons do not contain any blood stains or fingerprints. Learned counsel fervently contended that mere recoveries of weapons, which do not contain any blood stain or fingerprint, cannot be construed to be a reliable circumstantial evidence, strong enough to draw any inference against the accused-petitioner.

¶25

Learned counsel vehemently and fervently contended that on the date of alleged incident, the petitioner was coming back from Bangalore and at Thawla Road, he was hit by an unknown vehicle, whereupon he remained under treatment at JLN Hospital, Ajmer and at SMS Hospital, Jaipur, for about three months.

¶26

It was urged that the factum of the deceased making a phone call to the complainant, just before the commission of alleged crime remains uncorroborated till date, in as much as, no call record analysis has been made part of the charge sheet

[2023:RJ-JD:36509]

[CRLMB-6339/2023]

(4 of 6)

substantiating the same. Learned counsel thus, reiterated that the petitioner has been roped in the present case based only on conjectural theories.

¶31

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 may be granted to the accusedpetitioner.

¶32

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is guilty of committing brutal murder of his wife. The weapons i.e. sariya ( iron rod) and knife allegedly used for commission of alleged crime have been recovered on the basis of the information supplied by the petitioner. It was urged that the statements of the complainant have been recorded before the competent criminal court on 01.06.2022 as P.W.-4, wherein he has maintained the allegation against present petitioner. The statements of Investigating Officer have also been recorded before competent criminal court on 21.09.2022 as P.W.-7. Learned counsel submitted that sufficient corroboratory evidence in the form of recoveries is available on record indicating involvement of the petitioner in commission of alleged crime and therefore, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶33

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

¶34

(5 of 6) [CRLMB-6339/2023]

¶35

[2023:RJ-JD:36509]

¶36

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and having perused the FIR, challan papers, the statements of various witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statements of complainant (P.W.-4) and Investigating Officer (P.W.-7) recorded before competent criminal Court, this Court prima facie finds that though there is no eye witness of the incident but the narration of sequence of events of the alleged incident has been made by the complainant in the F.I.R. in such a vivid manner, as if the alleged incident was being watched by some eye witness. The complainant (P.W.-4) in his court statements has stated that he has narrated the sequence of events on suni sunai baatein which would be hearsay evidence and is inadmissible evidence. The complainant (P.W.-4) further stated that he received a call from the present petitioner telling that he has killed his daughter. This Court prima facie finds that no material in the form of call details etc., to corroborate aforesaid statement is available on record. This Court also prima facie finds that the alleged incident occurred on 11.10.2020 and the petitioner was arrested in connection with commission of alleged crime on 21.01.2021. The sariya ( iron rod) allegedly used in commission of crime was recovered on 21.01.2021 at the instance of the petitioner but the knife has been recovered in the absence of the present petitioner on 14.11.2020 i.e. after a delay of about one month. This Court prima facie further finds that neither the sariya (iron rod) recovered at the instance of the present petitioner nor the knife was containing blood stains. The record of the case shows that the petitioner is in judicial custody since

[CRLMB-6339/2023]

[2023:RJ-JD:36509]

(6 of 6)

21.01.2021 and till date out of total 28 cited prosecution witnesses, statements of only 9 cited prosecution witnesses have been recorded. The trial is therefore likely to take sufficiently long time before it is concluded. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶41

Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Saddam Hussain S/o Faizu Khan arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.184/2020, registered at Police Station Thawla, District Nagaur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

¶42

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.

¶43

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶44

Prashant

Saddam Hussain v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saddam Hussain 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

Tufan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhavesh @ Ganesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Hardeep Singh @ Sonu @ Pataka Vs State of Rajasthan

Sukhchain Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Arvind Karan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan