Allowed

Parmil @ Praveen S/O Hariram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Jan 2024CRLMB/239/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in an Alwar murder/dowry-death FIR where the investigating officer admitted no evidence of dowry demand or last seen. Noting the petitioner's young children and prolonged custody with a slow trial, the court enlarged him on bail without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on personal bond Rs.1,00,000 plus two sureties of Rs.50,000 each, subject to appearing before the trial Court on all hearing dates.

Parmil @ Praveen S/O Hariram Vs State of Rajasthan — Dowry and Cruelty | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:2457]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 239/2024

¶4

Parmil @ Praveen S/o Hariram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Gothda, Police Station Tijara, District Alwar At Present Lodged In The Sub Jail, Behror (Alwar).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg with Mr. Varun Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna, PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶9

Judgment / Order

¶10

16/01/2024

¶11

This bail application has been filed by the petitioner in connection with F.I.R. No. 156/2022, registered at Police Station Harsora District, Alwar for the offences mentioned therein.

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case without there being any cogent evidence. Counsel further submits that the Investigation Officer in the present case has been examined by the trial Court and in his examination he has stated that there is no evidence of demand of dowry and also there is no evidence of last seen with the deceased. Counsel further submits that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no evidence available on the record of last seen which connects the petitioner with the allegation of charge of 302 IPC with a chain of circumstances.

[2024:RJ-JP:2457]

[CRLMB-239/2024]

(2 of 4)

Counsel further submits that the petitioner has two kids one is of four years of age and another is of two years of age and they are residing with their grandparents and because of the arrest of the petitioner, the grandparents and kids are suffering a great hardship.

¶17

Counsel further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 11.07.2022 and till date out of total 38 prosecution witnesses only 8 have been examined by the trial Court and trial will still take further more time. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner was having illicit relations with a lady and when the deceased objected she was put to death by the petitioner in conspiracy with other co-accused person. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the allegations against the petitioner are much serious and therefore the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

¶19

Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor, perused the material made available on record including the challan papers as also the statements of the prosecution witnesses examined so far.

¶20

The petitioner has been charged for the offences under Section 304B and so also 302 IPC along with other offences. PW8Mritunjaya Mishra, Investigation Officer in his cross-examination has stated that there is no eye-witness of the incident and also there is no evidence of last seen of the petitioner at the place of occurrence. There is no evidence available on the record of demand of dowry at the time of marriage. The Investigation

[2024:RJ-JP:2457]

[CRLMB-239/2024]

(3 of 4)

Officer(PW8) has also stated that there is no evidence on record in regard to the illicit relations between the petitioner and the other who is lady co-accused in this case.

¶25

On perusal of the statement of the Investigation Officer (PW8), it is found that no evidence of the husband of the lady with whom the allegations of illicit relationships have been levelled, were recorded.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor has also failed to answer the query put by the Court that why the petitioner has been charged; one for offence under Section 304B IPC and other for offence under Section 302 IPC.

¶27

On this issue the Court has considered the judgment dated 02.07.2013 delivered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in case of “ Jasvinder Saini & Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)” (Criminal Appeal No.819 /2013 ).

¶28

This Court while deciding this bail application is taking note of the fact that the petitioner has two kids; one is of four years of age and other is of two years of age, who are residing with the old aged grandparents and also the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars since 11.07.2022 and till date out of 38 prosecution witnesses, only 8 witnesses have been examined by the trial Court.

¶29

Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and on perusal of the material available on record and other things as stated above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

[2024:RJ-JP:2457]

[CRLMB-239/2024]

(4 of 4)

Accordingly, the bail application is 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 trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before the trial Court and any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶34

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶35

Sharma NK, Dy. Registrar/1

Parmil @ Praveen S/O Hariram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmil @ Praveen S/O Hariram 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

Sudhir Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Balbir Singh Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram Singh Yadav S/O Shri Kaluram Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Arun Prakash Sharma Son of Shri Subedar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Prasad Sharma Son of Shri Tundaram Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahveer Singh S/O Shri Bhagirath Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pawan Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Deendayal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan