High CourtsSingle Bench

Nikhil Dangoriya vs State Of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 23 January 2024 · Citation: (2024) 01 RAJ CK 0100

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dinesh Mehta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 306
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 657 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 566 words

Dinesh Mehta, J

1.

This application for bail has been filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with FIR No.376/2023, registered at Police Station Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, District Bikaner for the offences under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has wrongly been charge-sheeted under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. While inviting Court’s attention towards the statement of Rahul (husband of the deceased), he submitted that the allegation is that the applicant used to blackmail the deceased, but there is no evidence of blackmailing.

3.

Learned counsel submitted that as against the statement of Rahul, the mother of the deceased (Anu Chanwariya) has alleged that the husband of the deceased has murdered her.

4.

Learned counsel submitted that the evidence on the basis whereof, the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet under 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code is the transcript of audio message found in the mobile phone of the deceased between the applicant and the deceased and if the same is gone into, nothing turns out, for which, the applicant can be accused of abatement of suicide.

5.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application.

6.

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

7.

It is to be noted that all the relevant witnesses have their version of the story. Rahul (husband of the deceased) is accusing the applicant, whereas mother of the deceased is accusing Rahul.

8.

On going through the transcript of the audio recording purportedly found in the mobile phone of the deceased, it is apparent that the deceased had physical relationship with the present applicant for last five years and she got annoyed because of the apprehension that he has started talking with other women.

9.

In the opinion of this Court, simply because the deceased lady has purportedly taken three names and had requested her father not to spare the present applicant, the applicant cannot be prosecuted for the offences under sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no evidence or material worth the name on the basis whereof, it can be said that the applicant had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, this Court is inclined to accept the bail application of the applicant and he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

10.

Consequently, the bail application filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed. The applicant Nikhil Dangoriya S/o Shri Ravi Shankar, arrested in connection with FIR No.376/2023, registered at Police Station Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, District Bikaner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

11.

Applicant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

12.

Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.