Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 809 (RAJ)

Amarchand v. State of Rajasthan

2019-03-11

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the material on record. 2. The petitioners have been arrested in FIR No. 145/2018 of Women Police Station, District Bikaner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354, 377, 376 and 494 IPC. They have preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No. 1-Amarchand is father-in-law and petitioner No. 2- Nirmala is mother-in-law of the complainant and the allegations of demand of dowry and misappropriation of stridhan levelled against them are false. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as a matter of fact the son of the petitioners has solemnized second marriage and on account of that a dispute arose between him and the complainant, who happened to be his first wife, and when the said dispute could not be settled, then this false FIR has been lodged against the petitioners and their son. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is wrong to say that the petitioners have ever harassed the complainant for demand of dowry. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, after perusing the case diary and after taking into consideration the fact that in the FIR as well as in the statements of complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., specific allegations of harassment and threatening have been levelled against petitioner No. 1-Amarchand, who happened to be the father-in-law of the complainant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to petitioner No. 1-Amarchand. 6. However, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to accused petitioner No. 2-Nirmala under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 7. 6. However, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to accused petitioner No. 2-Nirmala under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, the bail application preferred on behalf of petitioner No. 1-Amarchand S/o Shera Ram under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected and the bail application preferred on behalf of petitioner No. 2-Nirmala W/o Amarchand under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner No. 2-Nirmala W/o Amarchand in FIR No. 145/2018 of Women Police Station, District Bikaner she shall be enlarged on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:- (i) She shall make herself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; (iii) She shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.