Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 3010 (RAJ)

Teja Ram v. State

2019-12-16

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant 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. No.158/2019, registered at Police Station Luni, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. 3. Learned counsel Shri Kishan Singh Chouhan representing the petitioner urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The deceased Smt. Guddi was married to the petitioner on 10.12.2014. She was having a deformity of her leg. The relationship between the husband and wife became strained. The deceased had started living at her father's house for the last one year. She was invited to the matrimonial home to participate in a wedding. The petitioner used to work at Bangalore. After the deceased had returned to the matrimonial home, the husband and wife did not talk to each other, due to which, Guddi became perturbed and ended her life by hanging. He urges that if these allegations are considered to be true on the face of the record, prima facie ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC are not made out against the petitioner. He further pointed out that omnibus allegations of harassment and demand of dowry were attributed to Bhagwana Ram (father-in-law), Smt. Mirga Devi (mother-in-law), Smt.Sita Devi (sister-in-law-Jethani) and Teja Ram, the husband (present petitioner) of the deceased but the Investigating Officer did not file a charge sheet against the other persons arraigned by the prosecution witnesses in their statements. He thus urges that the petitioner deserves indulgence of bail during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. They contended that the deceased was married to the petitioner about five years ago. She was humiliated and harassed in the matrimonial home owing to which, she was compelled to live at her father's house for the last one year. She was invited to the matrimonial home to participate in the marriage of a close relative and no sooner had she returned, the petitioner being her husband maltreated and ignored her owing to which, Smt. Guddi committed suicide. They thus urged that petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail during the trial. 5. She was invited to the matrimonial home to participate in the marriage of a close relative and no sooner had she returned, the petitioner being her husband maltreated and ignored her owing to which, Smt. Guddi committed suicide. They thus urged that petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail during the trial. 5. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record. 6. Ex-Facie, from the findings recorded in the charge sheet, it is clear that the conclusion of the Investigating Officer was that the petitioner and Smt. Guddi were not on good terms owing to which Smt.Guddi was living at her father's house. Teja Ram neither went to meet nor talked to his wife. Smt. Guddi had returned to the matrimonial home to participate in a wedding and while she was there, the petitioner again ignored her and both indulged in a quarrel. Thereafter, while all the family members had gone to the agricultural field, Smt. Guddi ended her life by hanging. 7. In light of these facts, this Court has reason to believe that the conclusion of the Investigating Officer as per the charge sheet is not consistent with a case of dowry death. In addition thereto, Bhagwana Ram (father-in-law), Smt. Mirga Devi (mother-in-law) and Smt.Sita Devi (sister-in-law-Jethani) of the deceased against whom identical allegations were levelled by the material prosecution witnesses i.e., Jeka Ram, (father of the deceased), Prakash (brother of the deceased) and Smt. Parsi Devi (mother of the deceased), have not been charge-sheeted by the police. 8. In this background and having regard to the facts and circumstances available on record but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Teja Ram arrested in connection with the F.I.R. No.158/2019, registered at Police Station Luni, District 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.