Hemraj vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me.

Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the present case FIR was lodged as far back as on 8.9.2008 for offence u/s 304B of IPC, whereas in the medical examination report/postmortem report, the experts have opined that the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained. However, the visra was preserved and sent for examination to the FSL. In the report of the laboratory, that was received on 21.10.2010, it has been opined that on chemical examination, some portion of visra gave negative tests for metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids barbiturates, tranquillizers and insecticides. This has been defence of the petitioner that the deceased died due to natural death and there is no single mark or injury on the person, nor were there any unnatural mark so as to suggest any unnatural death. Investigation was kept pending for almost two years and the challan was filed on 29.5.2010 and that too for offence u/s 498A read with Section 306 IPC. Petitioner, who is father in law of the deceased was arrested on 7.5.2010 and there is no allegation of dowry or cruelty against him. Further contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner is that this is first offence of the petitioner. There is no previous criminal case ever registered against the petitioner. His case is exactly similar to that of his father, who has already been enlarged on bail by order of this Court dated 8/7/2010 passed in SB Cr.Misc.Bail Appl. No. 6207/2010.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case but taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that similarly situated co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by order of this Court, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

In the result, this bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Hemraj S/o Madan Lal shall be released on bail in FIR No. 1/2010 PS Bapacha, District Baran for offence u/s 306 IPC on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance before that court on all dates of hearing until conclusion of the trial.