Smt. Sobha vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Mehta, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The instant bail application has been filed u/s 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 42/2012, registered at Manila Thana Police Station, Jodhpur for the offences u/s 304-B, 316 and 498A IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in this case, the petitioner''s son Kaushal Chand was married to the deceased Pratibha. Learned counsel submits that pratibha''s clothes caught accidental fire on 4.2.2012, upon which, she immediately admitted at the burn unit of the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. Her dying declaration was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate on the same day. In the said dying declaration, she stated that when she was standing near the refrigerator, suddenly, her sari caught fire. The dying declaration of deceased Pratibha reads as under:--

Learned counsel submits that thereafter Pratibha continued to remain under treatment in the hospital. On the fourth day of the incident i.e. on 7.2.2012, her mother filed a written report with the SHO, Mahila Thana Police Station, Jodhpur with the allegations that her daughter was harassed for bringing less dowry by her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and sister-in-law''s husband. It was also alleged in the report that her in-laws set her on fire and that her statements were recorded under the pressure of her in-laws.

Learned Counsel submits that upon such FIR bring registred, the Investigation Officer moved yet another application to the CJM, Jodhpur on 7.2.2012 for recording the subsequent statement of the deceased. Such application was ultimately not pressed by the Circle Inspector on 9.2.2012. Learned counsel submits that again the Investigating Officer managed to procure an order for recording the statement of the deceased by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the deceased was examined u/s 164 Cr.P.C. on 9.2.2012 and in this statement, she alleged that her brother-in-law namely Pankaj demanded rupees three lacs from her. She further stated that her father-in-law also demanded money from her and her husband also used to taunt her on account of demand of dowry. She her father''s house for days together. She further stated that her father-in-law abused her after consuming liquor. When she wanted to live in her marital home, her in-laws did not permit her to enter the house Learned counsel submits that in this statement also, there is no allegation that soon before her death, any of the accused harassed or humiliated the deceased on account of bringing less dowry. There is no specific allegation in the statement that the petitioner set fire to the deceased.

Learned counsel further pointed out to this Court the Bed Head Ticked of the deceased whilst she remained admitted in the hospital and urged that there is no mention in the ticket that the deceased was deliberately set to fire by anybody. He submits that the burns received by the deceased are dry flame burns. He further Submitted that none of the other accused persons named in the statement dated 9.2.2012 apart from the petitioner and the grand-mother-in-law Smt. Shiv Pyari have been charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel further submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed for the offence u/s 302 IPC. Learned counsel therefore urged that the petitioner who is a lady has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel thus submits that the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

Learned counsel further argued that the Investigating Officer has deliberately and in order to mislead the court has concealed the earlier statement of the deceased recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 4.2.2012. He further submits that the fact regarding application for recoding the second statement being rejected by the Court has deliberately concealed in the charge-sheet.

Learned Public Prosecutor had been directed to call for the Investigating Officer and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, (East), Jodhpur to explain these facts.

The Deputy Commissioner of Police (East), Jodhpur namely Shri Rahul Prakash appeared in the court and submits that the Investigating Officer has committed an error in not placing on record of the charge-sheet, the said earlier statement of the deceased. He submits that appropriate departmental action shall be taken against the erring officer in this regard.

A perusal of the charge-sheet reveals very sorry state of affairs. The Investigating Officer had adopted the theory of pick and choose and choose and surprisingly, the statement of the deceased record by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 4.2.2012 has been concealed and has not been placed on the record along with the charge-sheet. Such a course of action cannot be appreciated.

Any comments on the propriety of the action taken by the Investigation Officer by this Court is likely to effect the proposed departmental action, but it is expected that the superior officers shall take proper action in this regard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the statement of the deceased recorded on 4.2.2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate as well as the charge-sheet filed in the case. A perusal of the statement of the deceased recorded on 4.2.2012 and 9.2.2012 reveal that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner regarding her having harassed or humiliated the deceased on account of bringing less dowry soon before her death. The statement dated 4.2.2012 is clear to the effect that the deceased caught fire accidentally. Even in the statement dated 9.2.2012 recorded by the learned judicial Magistrate, there is no allegation that the petitioner set the deceased on fire. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased has received dry flame burns. Three persons were present in the house when the deceased received burn injuries namely the petitioner, the grand-mother-in-law and the grand-father-in-law. The deceased expressed suspicion regarding the fire having been set to her by the petitioner, the grandmother-in-law, the grand-father-in-law, Pankaj and Bantu, Out of these persons, only the petitioner and the grand-mother-in-law have been charge-sheeted. The grand-mother-in-law namely Smt. Shiv Pyari has been granted bail by the learned trial Court.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the instant application for bail filed on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be accepted. Consequently, this bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused petitioner namely--Smt. Sobha wife of Shri Nemichand, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 42/2012, registered at Manila Thana Police Station, Jodhpur shall be released on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 40,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.