The High Court dismissed second bail applications of petitioners accused in a triple suicide case involving dowry demands, finding no material change in facts since the first rejection and noting the gravity of the incident where five lives were lost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JP:2116]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 55/2024
Santosh Devi W/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Meena, R/o Dudu, Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur (Raj.) (Earlier Confined In Sub Jail, Sambharlake, District Jaipur, Presently Confined At Women Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
334/2024
Meenu Devi W/o Late Shri Jitendra Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Dudu, Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur (Raj.), (Earlier Confined In Sub Jail, Sambharlake, District Jaipur, Presently Confined At Woman Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma-PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
12/01/2024
Both these bail applications are arising out of the same FIR, hence both applications are decided by this common order.
[2024:RJ-JP:2116]
[CRLMB-55/2024]
(2 of 6)
The first bail applications of the both the petitioners were rejected by this Court by a common order dated 24.11.2022.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of the first bail applications, statement of the material witnesses as well as initial Investigating Officer, PW-14-Smt. Laxmi Choudhary have been recorded. Counsel submits that perusal of the entire chargesheet indicates that one of the deceased Mamta used to talk with one Rajesh Choudhary for hours together and Rajesh Choudhary was not in the family relation of the deceased persons. Counsel submits that when this incident was noticed by the husband of the deceased Mamta, her mobile was snatched and thereafter, she along with her other sisters committed suicide for the reasons best known to them. Counsel submits that there is no directe or indirect evidence against the petitioners that they tortured or harassed the deceased for demand of dowry. Counsel submits that the marriage of three sisters were solemnized way back in the year 2005 while the alleged incident occurred on 25.05.2022, that is after more than seven years of marriage. Counsel submits that hence under these circumstances, no offence under Section 304A is made out. Counsel further submits that petitioner Santosh Devi is the widow mother-in-law of the deceased and the petitioner Meenu Devi is also widow sister-inlaw of the deceased. Counsel submits that looking to their long incarceration period, indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioners.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications and submitted that after rejection of the first bail applications there is no material change in the facts and
[2024:RJ-JP:2116]
[CRLMB-55/2024]
(3 of 6)
circumstances of the case which warrants interference of this Court to entertain the second bail applications. Counsel submits that all the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners were available with the petitioners and were argued at the time of decision of their first bail application. Counsel further submits that in the instant matter, all five persons have lost their lives. Counsel submits that looking to the gravity of the matter, the petitioners are not entitled to get indulgence of bail by this Court. Hence, under these circumstances, the applications are liable to be rejected.
Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.
The first application of the petitioners was decided by this Court by an elaborate order on 24.11.2022 which reads as under:-
“ ** ;= uk;ZLrq iwT;Urs jeUrs r= nsork%A ;=SrkLrq u iwT;Urs lokZLr=kQyk% fØ;k%A**
The above famous shloka from ‘Manusmriti’ means:-
“Where women are honored, divinity blossoms there, and where women are dishonored, all action no matter how noble remain unfruitful.”
Marriages are made in heaven, is an adage. A bride leaves the parental home for the matrimonial home, leaving behind sweet memories therewith a hope that she will see a new world full of love in her groom's house. She leaves behind not only her memories, but also her surname, gotra and maidenhood. She expects not only to be a daughter-inlaw, but a daughter in fact. Alas! the alarming rise in the number of cases involving harassment to the newly wed girls for dowry shatters the dreams. In-laws are characterized to be outlaws for perpetrating terrorism which destroys the
(4 of 6)
[2024:RJ-JP:2116]
[CRLMB-55/2024]
matrimonial home. The terrorist is dowry, and it is spreading tentacles in every possible direction.
The above quote of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Panjiyar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 1418 applies in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
Marriage of three sisters was solemnised with three brothers. Their husbands and in-laws started teasing, taunting, insulting and creating intolerable torture, resulting in severe mental agony, apathy for such disgraceful beastly life. All the three married girls were forced to commit suicide by jumping into well alongwith their two children. Such is the tragic, pathetic, harassing, heart-breaking, nerve-cracking, conscious-shocking and society rocking one line prosecution story of the deceased Mamta, Kalu and Kamlesh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased and there is no specific allegation against them and an artificial story of demand of dowry and harassment has been concocted against them. Counsel submits that the incident is very unfortunate but the petitioners have been falsely booked. The petitioners are widows having no concern with the dispute of the deceased with their husbands. Counsel submits that the petitioners are innocent but falsely foisted in this case, hence they deserve indulgence of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications and stated that marriage of all the three real sisters; namely Mamta, Kalu & Kamlesh was solemnised in the same house and all the deceased persons were being regularly tortured by their husbands and the family members for demand of dowry. Learned Public Prosecutor further stated that two days before the incident, the following message has reflected on the display picture of the Whatsapp mobile number of one of the deceased:-
”ge tk jgs gS ejus vc lc [kq’k jguk ejus dk dkj.k gS gekjs llqjky okys gS jkst jkst ejus ls vPNk ge lc feydj ej jgs gS
[2024:RJ-JP:2116]
[CRLMB-55/2024]
(5 of 6)
gs Hkxoku vxys tUe esa gesa cguksa dks ,d lkFk tUe nsuk esjs ifjokj okys ls ;g fuosnu gS fd gekjs fpark u djs”
Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that all the three deceased were being regularly tortured for demand of dowry by their husbands and by the petitioners, hence on the fateful day, they alongwith their two children committed suicide by jumping into the well. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that, in all, five persons have died in the aforesaid unfortunate circumstances created by the petitioners alongwith the co-accused persons. The Public Prosecutor submits that looking to the gravity of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve any indulgence of bail by this Court.
Heard and considered the rival submissions made at the bar.
This Court would not like to make any comment on evidence one way or other because the same may affect the trial, but looking to the nature of allegations and gravity of the matter as well as prosecution case, prima facie , cannot be doubted as fanciful or improbable, where in a nervous, shocking and heartbreaking incident, five persons have lost their lives, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail applications stand dismissed.
Before parting with the order, I would like to place on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been observed here-in-above has been said only for the purpose of disposing the prayer of bail made by the petitioners. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the case, which shall naturally have to be done by the trial Court at the appropriate stage of the trial. “
[2024:RJ-JP:2116]
[CRLMB-55/2024]
(6 of 6)
After passing of the aforesaid order, statement of material prosecution witnesses have been record and even the statement of the initial Investigating Officer PW14- Laxmi Choudhary has also been recorded. Though in her cross-examination she has admitted that telephonic conversation of one of the deceased Mamta with one Rajesh Choudhary were collected which indicates that prior to the incident they used to talk with each other. Mere talking with a person who was not a family member cannot be a ground for three sisters to have leave their lives along with two children. But without making any comments on merits and demerits of the case and looking to the fact that there is no material changed in the facts and circumstances of the case, which warrants any interference of this Court to entertain the second bail applications.
The second bail applications stand dismissed, accordingly.
Before parting with this order, it is made clear that trial Court would expedite the trial expeditiously, strictly on the basis of evidence available on record without being influenced by any observations made by this Court.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Ashu/2-3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second bail applications are maintainable and merited given no material change in facts.
Whether the allegations constitute dowry harassment warranting bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kamlesh Panjiyar Vs. State of BiharReferred¶44
Kamlesh Panjiyar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 1418
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Santosh Devi
Meenu Devi
State Of Rajasthan
Sardar Meena
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
