Nathulal and Others vs State of Rajasthan

J.C. Verma, J.—The petitioner Nathulal along with wife, two sons, daughters-in-law, and daughters had filed this application for anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 41/2000 registered at P.S., Pragpura Distt. Jaipur for the offence u/s 498-A IPC.

Smt. Komal wife of Murari Lal son of petitioner Nathu Lal, who husband is not accused in this case, had died. She was pregnant and was living with her husband separately from above, the seven persons. According to petitioners, as per post mortem report the cause of death is haemorrhage shock due to rapture of right flotan tube due to eclopic pregnancy. The Medical Board had conducted the post mortem.

After certain investigation conducted by the police, the police was of the opinion that no case was made out and still was of the opinion that the Final Report is to be submitted, which according to petitioners had been submitted. But before any order could be passed by the Magistrate there was fresh evidence coming in the hands of the police that is two letters purported to have been written by deceased almost a month before the said unfortunate day, wherein she is said to have mentioned the fact of harassment by in laws.

Notice was issued to learned P.P. and also to complainant. The Addl. Supdt. of Police was also called in the court.

From the statements recorded by the police, it is revealed that there was no mention of any letter which according to complainant were in possession of the police and the police had deliberately concealed the same. There is some evidence on record of police diary alleging harassment by Nathu Lal.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, for the reason that the investigation is propossing the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner Nathu Lal is to be rejected and is rejected.

Taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances of the case without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case I consider it just and proper to grant the anticipatory bail to other remaining petitioners u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

Therefore, the SHO/Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer of Police Station, Pragpura is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners (1) Mahendra, (2) Mool Chand (3) Smt. Pappi, (4) Smt. Mamta, (5) Shimla and (6) Smt. Teeja in FIR No. 41/2000 they be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- Rs. Thirty thousand) with two sureties of Rs. 15,000/- each to the satisfaction of concerned SHO on the following conditions:

that the petitioner shall make himself/themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

that the petitioner 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 any police officer; and

that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

Anything observed in this order shall not affect the merits of investigation or any other application moved by any person for challenge of whatsoever nature.