Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1763 (RAJ)

Naseem @ Naseeb v. State of Rajasthan

2007-09-18

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence under section 304-B IPC is made out in this case on account of the fact that the marriage between the parties had taken place more than 7 years ago. In support of his submissions, he has placed on record the affidavits of Naseer, Mamoora, Sher Mohd., Ibrahim and Ameen to show that the marriage had taken place on 9.5.1999. He has also submitted that no demand of dowry was ever made by the petitioner either to the deceased or to her parents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the death of the deceased took place on account of accidental fall into the well which resulted into drowning of the deceased. 3. Learned PP as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. According to them the petitioner who is the husband of the deceased had demanded the dowry and harassed the deceased. They have submitted that there is consistent evidence on record to support the said submissions made by them about the demand of dowry and harassment to the deceased. They have also invited my attention to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to show that a demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made about two and half months before the death of the deceased and out of which Rs. 20,000/- was sent to her in-laws house through some co-villagers. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the evidence on record filed along with the challan. The statements of Issar, Faroon, Fouju, Ali Mohd., Smt. Shamina and Smt. Fatima have also been perused by me. It is note worthy that the statement of Quaji Mohd. Ramjan had been recorded by the Investigating Agency, who has stated that the marriage had taken place on 9.6.2000. Besides this, the Investigating Agency has placed on record the statements of Akhtar Hussain, Mahmood, Rahman, Om Prakash, Bachchu @ Jahoor Khan to show that the petitioner is a habitual offender and on that count also there was dispute between the parties and the members of parents family were also time and again asked to give bail bonds etc. Besides this, the Investigating Agency has placed on record the statements of Akhtar Hussain, Mahmood, Rahman, Om Prakash, Bachchu @ Jahoor Khan to show that the petitioner is a habitual offender and on that count also there was dispute between the parties and the members of parents family were also time and again asked to give bail bonds etc. in the cases pending against the petitioner. 5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 6. Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.PC. is dismissed.Bail refused. *******