Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2189 (RAJ)

Sandeep Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2021-11-20

DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

body2021
JUDGMENT Devendra Kachhawaha, J. - The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.175/2019, Police Station Rawala, District Sriganganagar, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that at the time of rejection of first bail application (No.5094/2020) by this Court vide order dated 21.07.2020, liberty was granted to petitioner to file a fresh bail application after recording the statement of complainant, Chet Ram; thereafter, statement of Chet Ram as PW.1 has been recorded before learned trial Court; during cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that marriage of all the three daughters has taken place on the same day; at the time of marriage, no demand of motor-cycle and dowry has been made by the petitioner; both the families are daily wage workers; as per charge-sheet, offence punishable under Section 498-A has not been made out as per the Investigating Officer. He further stated that there is no evidence of instigation or provocation soon before the death of the deceased; charge-sheet has been filed; and trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that marriage has took place on 25.11.2016 and approximately within three years of the marriage, the incident took place i.e., 25.10.2019; complainant Chet Ram (PW.1), father of the deceased has fully supported the story of prosecution; there is no statement during cross-examination on the basis of which the statement of PW.1 can be disbelieved. Learned Public Prosecutor further stated that at the conclusion of charge-sheet, it is clearly stated by Investigating Officer that offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A has been made out against the accused-petitioner, therefore, benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-petitioner. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor further stated that at the conclusion of charge-sheet, it is clearly stated by Investigating Officer that offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A has been made out against the accused-petitioner, therefore, benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-petitioner. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly looking to the facts that the death of the deceased has taken place within the three years of the marriage at her matrimonial house; PW.1, father of the deceased has supported the story of prosecution and during cross-examination, PW.1 has stated that demand of motor-cycle and dowry has been made by the accused-petitioner; he has tried to made the settlement at social level but no settlement has been made and he further stated that accused-petitioner has a habit of gambling and also the demand of dowry, both are the reasons of death of the deceased; and the statement of material witness is yet to be recorded, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant benefit of second bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, the instant second bail application preferred by the petitioner, Sandeep Kumar S/o Omprakash, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.