Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 187 (RAJ)

Jai Ram S/o Khinya Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-16

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. (C.R.) No. 261/2016, registered at Police Station Pipar City (Jodhpur) for the offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 406 IPC. 3. The first application for bail submitted on behalf of the petitioner was rejected by this Court on 03.04.2017 giving him liberty to move a fresh one after recording of the statement of the first informant by the trial court. The petitioner and the deceased Sahita were married 14 years ago. Sahita ended her own and her two children's lives by jumping into a water tank on 02.10.2016. The first informant Birda Ram, being the brother of the deceased, lodged an FIR against the petitioner (husband), father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in- law and sister-in-law of the deceased alleging that she was being harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry and as a culmination of their cruel acts, the accused persons murdered the mother and the two children by drowning them into the water tank. Initially, the case was registered for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 498A IPC. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed only against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 406 IPC. Needless to say that benefit of presumption is not available to the prosecution in the case at hand as the marriage of the petitioner and the deceased Sahita took place more than 14 years ago. In the statement of Birda Ram, who was examined by the trial court on 27.11.2017, the highest allegation regarding any cruel act of the accused with the deceased before the fateful incident is in reference to the call made by Sahita to her parental relatives two days before the incident wherein, she alleged that her in-laws were beating her and she was being threatened that she should die with her children or else they would be killed. Shri Choudhary, learned Sr. Counsel urges that in this last conversation of the deceased with her maternal relatives, there is no reference of the petitioner having harassed or humiliated her or having instigated her to commit suicide. Shri Choudhary, learned Sr. Counsel urges that in this last conversation of the deceased with her maternal relatives, there is no reference of the petitioner having harassed or humiliated her or having instigated her to commit suicide. He thus urges that the petitioner, who is in custody in this case from 09.10.2016, deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Mehra, learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. Shri Mehra contended that as a matter of fact, it is a case of murder plain and simple. He further contended that as the petitioner was living separately from his other relatives, manifestly the reason behind the unnatural deaths of the lady and two children has to be attributed to the petitioner. However, he could not dispute the fact that the trial court has framed charge against the petitioner only for the offence under Section 306 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. On perusing the statement of Birda Ram, the first informant, it is apparent that no pertinent allegation of demand of dowry or specific instance of harassment or humiliation given to the deceased has been attributed to the present petitioner. The argument advanced by Shri Mehra is fallacious on the face of the record because even in Birda Ram's sworn statement, there is no reference of the petitioner in the telephonic conversation held between the deceased and her maternal relatives two days before the incident in which she complained about the conduct of her in-laws. 5. In this background and having regard to the facts and circumstances available on the record, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 6. Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Jai Ram arrested in connection with the F.I.R. (C.R.) No. 261/2016, registered at Police Station Pipar City (Jodhpur) shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.