Allowed

Shivram S/O Ramroop v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Jan 2025CRLMB/15016/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to Shivram S/o Ramroop in a dowry death case under BNS. The court noted main allegations favoured co-accused Amarnath and authorised release on furnishing a bond without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial judge.

Shivram S/O Ramroop Vs State of Rajasthan — Dowry and Cruelty | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:634]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15016/2024

¶4

Shivram S/o Ramroop, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Sukku Nagla, Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Bayana District Bharatpur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishram Prajapati Mr. Anshuman Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Dhakar, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Malkhan Chaturvedi

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 06/01/2025

¶11

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. on behalf of the accused-petitioner. The accusedpetitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.510/2024 registered at Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur for the offence(s) under Sections 189(2), 85, 80(2) and 238(b) of B.N.S.

¶12

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer is against the charge-sheet and the charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused-petitioner and the other co-accused Amarnath @ Bablu under Section 80(2) of B.N.S. whereas, the Investigating Officer in his conclusion, reached to the finding that there was no demand of dowry on the part of the accusedpetitioner and the other co-accused. It is also contended that the main allegation is against the other co-accused Amarnath @ Bablu. It is also contended that at the time of incident, the

[2025:RJ-JP:634]

[CRLMB-15016/2024]

(2 of 3)

accused-petitioner was not present there. It is also contended that the statement of witnesses namely Supita and Sapna, who are real sisters of the deceased have stated that they heard noises between co-accused Amarnath @ Bablu and the deceased Kavita. It is also contended that the allegations levelled against the accused-petitioner is omnibus in nature and not specific that soon before the death of the deceased, the accused-petitioner harassed the deceased or subjected her to cruelty which resulted into her suicidal death. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 02.10.2024 and trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant vehemently oppose the bail application.

¶18

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the deceased died in suspicious circumstances and without informing and waiting for her parents, her dead body was cremated. It is also contended that no information was given to nearby Police Station about the said incident. It is also contended that in the Jogi Samaj Society, there is no ritual of funeral and ordinarily, cremation takes place. The dead body of the deceased was not cremated, therefore, considering the above facts, the bail application of the accused-petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

¶19

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶20

In the statement rendered under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. the real sister namely Supita of the deceased has stated that she heard the noises between the co-accused Amarnath @ Bablu and the deceased Kavita and thereafter, when she went to the house

[2025:RJ-JP:634]

[CRLMB-15016/2024]

(3 of 3)

of the deceased, the deceased was found hanged with a fan. Similarly, other real sister of the deceased, Sapna in her statement rendered under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. has stated the same version.

¶25

Considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the main allegations of harassing the deceased soon before her death is against the other co-accused Amarnath @ Bablu and without commenting anything on further merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶26

Accordingly, this bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Shivram S/o Ramroop in connection with FIR No.510/2024 registered at Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the 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 do so.

¶27

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶28

DEEPA RANI -329

Shivram S/O Ramroop v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivram S/O Ramroop 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

Suraj Meena S/O Prahlad Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mustufa S/O Deenu Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Vimla W/O Ajay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rizwan Ahmad S/O Mohammad Iqbal Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepti Dhadhich W/O Anurag Dhadhich Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanju Kumar S/O Sh. Sahab Singh Vs State of Rajasthan