Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 611 (RAJ)

Neeraj Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2016-05-03

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J. This Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 27.10.2015 passed by the District and Sessions Judge Udaipur in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2046/2015 in F.I.R. No. 58/2003, whereby, the Court below has granted bail to the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Court below has grossly erred in granting bail to the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 though from the material available on record, prima facie, involvement of the aforesaid respondents in the commission of crime is available on record. It is also argued that the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are guilty of commission of heinous crimed of dowry death and cognizance has been taken against them for the offences punishable under Sections 340B, 409 and 498A I.P.C., therefore, the impugned order of granting bail to the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 may kindly be quashed. 3. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) v. State of Gujarat reported in (2008) 5 SCC 66 , Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in AIR 2013 SC 296 and Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) v. State a Gujarat and another reported in (2008) 13 SCC 584 . 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgments has held that bail granted to an accused can be cancelled by the Sessions Court or the High Court if the same has been granted while taking into consideration irrelevant material. It has also been held that the High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel the bail even in case, where the order of granting bail suffers from miscarriage of justice. It has also been held that bail granted to an accused can be cancelled if the accused persons are likely to tamper with the evidence or attempt to interfere or evade the due course of justice. 6. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur while granting bail to the respondent Nos. It has also been held that bail granted to an accused can be cancelled if the accused persons are likely to tamper with the evidence or attempt to interfere or evade the due course of justice. 6. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur while granting bail to the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 has observed that during the course of police investigation, the father of the deceased has not alleged that respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had assaulted his daughter for procuring dowry. The Trial Court has also noticed the fact that the elder sister of the deceased has been married in the family of the accused persons. The Court has further observed that the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged after delay and the matter is 12 years old. 7. I have also gone through the statements of the father of the deceased recorded by the Investigating Officers on 3 occasions and in those statements, he has not alleged that the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had ever assaulted the deceased for procuring dowry. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the elder sister of the deceased was not married in the family of the deceased, but was married with the nephew of the father-in-law of the deceased. This Court is of the opinion that the nephew of father-in-law of the deceased is a member of the extended family of the accused persons and, therefore, the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge that the elder sister of the deceased is married in the Family of the petitioner cannot be said to be irrelevant. 9. It is also not in dispute that the F.I.R. in the matter was lodged after a delay of 5 days and the case is 12 years old. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is all possibility that the accused persons may tamper with the evidence or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice. Fie has invited attention of this Court towards some complaints made by the relatives and other persons of the deceased, herein, they have alleged that the accused persons, particularly the husband of the deceased had threatened them to change their statements. Fie has invited attention of this Court towards some complaints made by the relatives and other persons of the deceased, herein, they have alleged that the accused persons, particularly the husband of the deceased had threatened them to change their statements. It is noticed that the last complaint to this effect was filed by one Ramesh Chandra, who happened to be the uncle of the deceased, in the year 2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any such complaint filed by the relatives of Die deceased after 2007. 11. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that while granting bail to the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur has not taken into consideration any irrelevant material and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the accused persons are likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Thus, there is no force in this criminal misc. bail cancellation application and the same is hereby rejected.