Devendra Singh APPELLANT @Hash State Of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Mathur, J

This third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.246/2021 registered at Police Station Khamnore, District Rajsamand, for offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 406 IPC.

The petitioner is the husband of deceased – Bhawna, who committed suicide on 23.11.2021 by hanging herself. The marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was solemnized in the year 2020. The deceased within seven years of her marriage died in her matrimonial house in unnatural circumstances. In the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased, it is alleged that the petitioner and his family members used to mentally torture the deceased for demand of dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. In order to support his conentions and Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of mother (PW-5) and sister (PW-4) of the deceased, learned counsel submitted that these witnesses have not levelled any specific allegation of demand of dowry against the petitioner. Further, the attention of the Court was also drawn towards the statements of Manohar Singh (PW-1), Kishan Singh (PW-2), Dhan Singh (PW-9), Dharamnarayan (PW-8) and Babu Lal(PW-10) recorded before competent criminal court to highlight the fact that these witnesses have also not levelled any specific allegation of harassment to the deceased in connection with demand of dowry. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner on a few occasions had merely requested the father of the deceased to lend him some money for aiding him in establishing his business. On the strength of these facts, learned counsel argued that the request for lending money solely cannot be equated with that of the dowry demand.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 20.12.2021; the statements of material witnesses have already been recorded before competent criminal court, therefore, there is no likelihood of the petitioner influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the deceased has met with an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage, therefore, looking to the seriousness of the accusation and allegations levelled against him, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the material prosecution witnesses have already been examined before the competent criminal court. This Court also prima facie finds that the deceased committed suicide in her matrimonial house without there being any aid or abetment to alleged commission of the suicide. This Court also prima facie finds that the status of most of the independent witnesses is of hearsay witnesses only as they have not pointed out any specific stance about the deceased being harassed or humiliated by the petitioner in connection with dowry demand. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the present third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Devendra Singh S/o Nirbhay Singh shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.246/2021 registered at Police Station Khamnore, District Rajsamand, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to so.

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.