Manju Devi vs State Of Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the material on record.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with FIR No.124/2019 of Women Police Station, District Bikaner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC. She has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner of harassment and demand of dowry are absolutely false. It is argued that the petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased and no specific instance of demand of dowry by her is mentioned in the complaint filed by the complainant. It is submitted that as a matter of fact the deceased and her husband, who happened to be the son of the petitioner, used to reside separately from the petitioner, however, few days before the incident, the husband of the deceased asked the husband of the petitioner that as he was not getting any accommodation on rent, he might be allowed to live for quite some time in the upper portion of the house. It is submitted that the deceased was willing to live separately with her husband, however, when her husband failed to provide separate accommodation to her, she being perturbed with the same committed suicide along with her minor daughter. It is also submitted that the marriage of the deceased and the son of the petitioner was solemnized on 29.01.2015 and till the date of filing of this complaint, no such complaint of harassment or demand of dowry was filed against the petitioner by the complainant or deceased. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation as per the directions given by this Court, therefore, custodial interrogation from her is not required.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that since the deceased, who happened to be the daughter-in-law of the petitioner and her minor daughter died within seven years of marriage as per the law presumption is against the petitioner, therefore, she is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the case diary, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner 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 the petitioner - Manju Devi W/o Murlidhar in FIR No.124/2019 of Women Police Station, District Bikaner she shall be enlarged on bail provided she 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) She shall make herself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) She 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) She shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.