Jitendra And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR/CR Case No.58/2020 of Police Station Siddhmukh, District Churu for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 313 and 506 I.P.C. They have preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that allegations levelled in the impugned FIR against the petitioners are absolutely false. It is argued that marriage of the petitioner No.1 was solemnized with the complainant on 04.02.2020. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 is a constable in Haryana Police whereas, the complainant is a teacher in the Education Department of State of Haryana. Few days after their marriage on 04.02.2020, the petitioner No.1 and the complainant were shifted to Fatehabad where, the petitioner No.1 was posted as a constable. On 22.04.2020, the complainant lodged an FIR at Police Station Hisar alleging that on 24.02.2020 her father-in-law i.e. the petitioner No.2 had attempted to outrage her modesty, however, she rescued herself and complained regarding the same to the petitioner No.1, but he did not pay any heed to it. Thereafter on 18.03.2020, the maternal uncle of the petitioner No.1 came to their house in Fatehabad and there, he had also tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the said FIR, the Police after investigation had proposed to file a negative final report. It is further submitted that after the said FIR, another FIR bearing No.313 has also been lodged at Police Station Hisar by father of the complainant, in which, it is alleged that the Baleno car given in dowry to the petitioner No.1 has been damaged deliberately by the petitioner No.1. It is submitted that in the said FIR also, the police have not found the allegations levelled as proved. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that allegation against the petitioner No.1 of forcible termination of pregnancy of the complainant has also not been found to be proved by the police till date. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that though, no such allegation of unnatural sex has been levelled by the complainant in the impugned FIR, but later on, the said allegation has been levelled by the complainant falsely. It is argued that after the marriage of the petitioner No.1 and the complainant, both of them were shifted to Fatehabad on 02.03.2020 and the complainant lived there up to 14.04.2020 and from that day, she is residing in her maternal house only. It is submitted that allegation of outraging modesty of the complainant levelled against the petitioner No.2 is absolutely false and no satisfactory explanation has been given by the complainant for alleging the same after a delay of more than one month. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the petitioners have already joined the investigation and have also returned all the 'streedhan', which was with them, in such circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not at all necessary. It is also submitted that the petitioner No.1 is in government service and if he is arrested then his career would be adversely affected. It is, thus, prayed that the petitioners may be given benefit of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are not false and the same have been proved during the course of investigation by the police. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant party has furnished a recorded conversation of the petitioner No.2 with the brother of the complainant, which took place on 24.02.2020 and from the said conversation, it is clear that the petitioner No.2 was demanding dowry from the complainant. It is further submitted that the allegation of termination of pregnancy of the complainant levelled against the petitioner No.1 is also not false as from the medical report, it is clear that on 09.03.2020, the pregnancy test of the complainant was found positive and soon after that, the petitioner No.1 had forced her to take a pill for the purpose of termination of her pregnancy. It is also submitted that the FIR in respect of damage of the car given as dowry is also not false as the complainant had already informed the police a day prior to the said incident that the car given in the dowry could be damaged by the petitioners and their relatives. It is also submitted that though the petitioners have joined the investigation with the police, however, all the 'streedhan' of the complainant have not been returned by them and almost all her ornaments have been withheld by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the complainant has, therefore, argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the purpose of recovery of the 'streedhan' of the complainant, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary, hence, this anticipatory bail application preferred by the petitioners may be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. It appears that soon after the marriage of the petitioner No.1 and the complainant, some dispute arose between them. The petitioner No.1 and the complainant are in government service and after their marriage on 04.02.2020, they shifted to Fatehabad in first week of March, 2020 and lived there up to 14.04.2020, as such the complainant remained in her in-laws house at Bandakhedi for less than a month. It is not alleged that after that, the petitioner No.2 had ever visited Fatehabad where the petitioner No.1 and the complainant were residing. From the case diary, it appears that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they have also been interrogated by the Investigating Officer and some dowry items have also been returned to the complainant party, including a cash amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Having regard to the totality of the 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 the accused petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners

- (1) Jitendra S/o Jasveer and (2) Jasveer S/o Om Prakash in connection with FIR/CR Case No.58/2020 of Police Station Siddhmukh, District Churu, they shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them 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) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) They 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) They shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.