Lahari Bai vs State of Rajasthan

B.S. Shethna, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

This is the third bail application filed by petitioner Smt. Lahari Bai, who is aged about 75 years and mother-in-law of deceased Narayani, who is alleged to have committed suicide because of the mental and physical harassment meted out to her by her husband Kishanlal and her mother-in-law, Smt. Lahari Bai, the present petitioner.

Earlier bail application of the petitioner came to be rejected by this Court. Last bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 3rd Feb., 1995. Against this order dated 3rd Feb., 1995, an SLP (Criminal) No. 1382/95 was filed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India, which was rejected on 17.4.1995 with the clarification that, "if and when a fresh bail application is filed, after the framing of the charge, the Trial Court shall decide that application on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made in the last paragraph of the impugned order passed by the High Court". Accordingly, the petitioner preferred fresh bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara for releasing her on bail after the evidence of about five witnesses have been recorded before him, which includes the evidence of Mangi Lai, father of deceased Narayani, and Jhamku, mother of deceased Narayani. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 10th May, 1995 rejected the bail application. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed this third bail application to release her on bail.

Learned Counsel Mr. Charan has mainly argued that the co-accused Kishanlal, husband of deceased Narayani, whose earlier bail application was rejected by this Court (R.P. Saxena, J.) has granted bail to accused Kishan Lal in his second bail application. A Xerox copy of that order is also produced by him, which is on record. He submitted that Kishanlal was the main accused, who has been granted bail and, therefore, the present petitioner, who is a lady and aged, about 75 years old, should be released on bail, because same allegations are levelled by the witnesses against both of them.

Learned Counsel Mr. Charan has also annexed certified Xerox copy of the evidence of witnesses, whose evidence .has been recorded before the learned Judge. It may be stated that now very few and formal witnesses, except Investigating Officer, are going to be examined, and the trial is kept on 8th August, 1995, as stated by learned Counsel Mr. Charan at the Bar. Therefore, the petitioner be released on bail.

Second bail application of Kishan Lal has been granted by my learned brother Shri R.P. Saxena, J. on 9th May, 1995. While granting the bail, my learned brother has observed as under:

"I have perused the statements of aforementioned witnesses. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting on the merits, I feel that it will be just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner."

What has appealed to my learned Brother releasing accused Kishanlal on bail, is not clear from the order. I have also carefully perused the evidence of witnesses and I am convinced that the present accused-petitioner is not entitled for bail. It is not proper for this Court to discuss the evidence at this stage as laid down by the Supreme Court of India in many cases. Therefore, I have refrained myself from giving detailed reasons.

Without offering any more comment I say that the petitioner is not entitled for bail, though, co-accused, who is her son and husband of deceased Narayani, has been granted bail by this Court in second bail application on same sets of evidence on record.

Lastly, Mr. Charan submitted that petitioner is an old lady of 75 years. If she is not released on bail then she may even die in judicial custody. Therefore, on humanitarian ground also she may be released on bail.

Orrdinarily, woman and that too an old woman should be released on bail. But, the case on hand is such where the Court has no option but to refuse the bail. Cases of dowry death are increasing in our society and causing great alarm. Deceased Narayani should not have been subjected to mental and physical torture by her mother-in-law, simply because she had no issue even after six years of her marriage. Being the mother-in-law, it was her duty to properly look after her daughter-in-law as she was in place of her mother. Instead of that, she continued to harass her daughter-in-law on the aforesaid two grounds. If the deceased was not able to deliver any child then the petitioner could have asked her son and her daughter-in-law to go for adoption of a child but instead of that, her daughter-in- law was subjected to mental as well as physical harassment. In our country, woman is the greatest enemy of a woman. The petitioner forgot that she was also once upon a time, a daughter-in-law. That apart, there is nothing on record to show that her condition is such that if she is not released on bail, she may die in judicial custody. Moreover, the Sessions Case is now fixed on 8th August, 1995. There is hardly a month from today and the case is likely to over within a short time. Therefore, there is no reason for this Court to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.

Except the aforesaid arguments, no other argument was advanced except one argument, which he has not pressed later on and, therefore, is not dealt with.

In view of the above, this bail application is rejected.