Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nirmal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:9459) on 22 February, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:9459]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1432/2024
Nirmal Singh S/o Banwarilal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Bahawalwasi, P.s. Abohar, Dist. Fazilka (Punjab). At Present
Sunderpura Head, Tehsil Sadulsahar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
(At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Rawatsar)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mangatraj S/o Balraj, R/o Ward No. 4, Karanpur, P.s.
Karanpur, Dist. Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mhaipal Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 22/02/2024
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
1. FIR Number 522/2023
2. Concerned Police Station Rawatsar
3. District Hanumangarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 304-B of the IPC
5. Offences added, if any Section 498-A of the IPC
6. Date of passing of impugned 25.01.2024
order
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- (Downloaded on 27/02/2024 at 08:36:21 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:9459] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1432/2024] petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the impugned order and material available on record.
1. 5. Perusal of the material revealing that marriage of Sonu (deceased) was solemnized with petitioner three years prior to the incident. It is specifically mentioned in the FIR that for a considerable period, they spent happy married life without any complain. She died on 29.09.2023 only whereafter, the allegation regarding demand of dowry has been levelled in the FIR. In a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., in first para of Page No.2 it has specifically mentioned that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. Thus, it is reflecting that while solemnizing the marriage or before it, there was no demand as a condition for marriage. The word "dowry" has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code and the term can be understood by the definition given in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 as per which the word dowry has an extricable nexus with the marriage and it should have been in connection with the marriage only. It may be before the marriage at the time of marriage or whereafter to an unending period but in any case, the demand must be a condition for the marriage; reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble the (Downloaded on 27/02/2024 at 08:36:21 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:9459] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1432/2024] Supreme Court in the case of Satvir Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2828. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to allow further incarceration of the petitioner. Before parting it is made clear that the observations hereinabove are limited to the justifiable disposal of the bail application which would have no bearance on the further course of trial at any stage of the trial. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.
6. It is nigh well settled law that at a pre-conviction stage; bail is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him. Otherwise, it is the rule of Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is proved.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J 88-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 27/02/2024 at 08:36:21 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)