Bhanwar Lal and Others vs State of Rajasthan

Mohini kapoor, J.—This bail application u/s 438 Ct. PC was presented on 4-10 1988 and on several occasions the case diary was not received it was directed that the petitioners should not be arrested and they should appear for interrogation before the Investigating Agency. On 15-11-1988 it was reported that inspite of the best efforts of the petitioners they were not interrogated. Thereafter directions were issued again and on 14-2-1988 it was found that the petitioners had been interrogated, but several persons who could be said to be having knowledge about the case had not been examined. It was also found that the investigation had been examined. It was also found that the investigation had been transferred to the CID and this court directed that the investigation should be completed at an early stage and if necessary the petitioners could be called far interrogation again. It has been stated that the petitioners have been interrogated by the CID who investigated the case, but inspite of giving last opportunity the case diary has not been produced and the matter is being delayed for a long time, so this bail application is to be decided without further delay.

The deceased in this case is Snehlata who died in the early hours of 20-9-1988 due to burning. She was taken to the hospital and she made a statement before the Doctor, which is to the effect that she was married to petitioner No. 1, 8 or 10 years ago and on the morning of the incident her mother-in-law and sister-in-law, petitioners 2 and 4 quarreled with her as to why she had thrown the child. According to her all the three petitioner used to quarrel on account of bringing less dowry. Then at 11.30 p m. when her husband was or the terrace and her mother in-law and sister-in-law were in their room she sprinkled kerosene on her and burnt herself and her child also got burnt. She ended her life because she was tired of the constant quarrel with the petitioners.

On this statement a case was registered. It is in an admitted position that the petitioners brought Senhlata to the Hospital for treatment soon after the incident of burning. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners the marriage bad taken place 8 to 10 years ago and Section 304B, IPC is not available in this case and this is a case of suicide for reasons not connected with dowry on cruelty. In fact the petitioners made efforts to save her and the child. According to him the petitioners cannot be held liable for this suicide of Snehlata. That have been co-operating with the investigating agency. According to them there is no material on the file of the Investigating Agency in order to suggest the guilt of the petitioners.

The application has been vehemently opposed by the learned Counsel for the complainant. First of all it is contended that the provision for grant of anticipatory bail should not be made use of in matters where the crime can be said to be a crime against the society by burning a woman on account of not bringing in sufficient dowry. Reliance has been placed on Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan RLW 1980 267 where in the anticipatory bail application of a husband for the death of his newly married wife who committed suicide and left a detailed note about reasons for which she had ended her life, was not granted anticipatory bail.

In Ashok Dhariwal v. State RLW1982 293 the husband was accused of murdering his wife due to failure of her parents to satisfy the greed and lust of money. The defence was accidental burning. The wife had written letters to her parents giving details of the cruel treatment which had been meted out to her. Considering all the circumstances the anticipatory bait application was dismissed.

The other case cited in Koshi Ram v. State 1988 Cr. LR 21 where in the bail already granted was cancelled, where it was found that smacked of arbitrariness, capriciousness perversity. The anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Judge was cancelled.

In Pokar Ram v. State AIR 198S SC 969 the person accused of murder by use of fire arm had been released on anticipatory bail by the High Court and this order was set aside saying that the court has to be cautious and circumspect in exercising such power of a discretionary nature and it was held that statutes in life, affluence or otherwise hardly relevant considerations while examining the request for granting anticipatory bail.

The principals of law having been looked into the question of grant of anticipatory bail to these petitioners has to be considered in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned for the complainant has read out certain affidavits of witnesses in order to show that there was constant quarrel in the house of the petitioners and the deceased was treated cruelly. Earlier the Investigating Agency had not examined these witnesses but according to him the statements of these witnesses have now been recorded.

From the facts which have come out so far it can be said on the basis of statement made by Snehlata before the Doctor that she was tired with her life on account of constant quarrel of the petitioners. The details of these quarrels cannot be found out because the material which can be said to be in the case diary is not before me and instance of quarrels have not been pointed out by the learned Counsel. Whether it was on account of dowry or it was some thing else is a matter which can be expected to come out during the trial of the case. The immediate incident which can be said to have taken place on the day the death of Snehlata is that she had allowed her child to get out of her bands and that she was scolded for this by the petitioners 2 and 3. This child is said to be about 5 months old and he also got burnt along with the deceased as they were together in the room. As for the dowry demand it has been contended that the petitioner is a Class IV employee and the brother of the deceased is also a class IV employee and that people of their status, there could not be a demand of fringe etc Here I will have to say again that in absence of case diary it cannot be said that what is the evidence about demand of dowry and what were the articles which had been demanded by the petitioners. From the tone of the statement made by the Snehlata it can be said that all the time three petitioners were quarreling with her and she was tired on account of it. She ended her life herself and in this case when the marriage had taken place 8 to 10 years prior to the incident Section 304B IPC is not applicable. The case has to come u/s 306 IPC and this is different from the offence u/s 304B, IPC. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it can be said that the petitioners have been cooperating with the investigation of the case and the petitioners No. 1 had taken Snehlata to the Hospital for treatment at the earliest time and that the part of the petitioners in the commission of the offence has to be proved and no presumption can be raised about it, these petitioners can be released on anticipatory bail on appropriate conditions.

The SHO/Arresting Officer, Investigating. Officer, Police Station Khandela in FIR No. 77 of 1988 is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners Bhanwarlal, Mst. Chand and Mst. Lalita they be released on bail; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to his satisfaction on the following conditions:

(a) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

(b) that the petitioners 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 that court, or to any police officer; and

(c) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the provisions permission of the court.