Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tejkaran Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 October, 2021
Author: Anil Verma
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. No.45252/2021
(Tejkaran Rathore Vs. State of M.P.)
-1-
Indore, dated 25/10/2021
Shri Priyvrat Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Ms. Seema Maheshwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on
behalf of the applicant for grant of bail. The applicant is implicated
in connection with Crime No.310/020 registered at Police Station-
Nalkheda, District-Agar (Malwa) M.P. for offence punishable under
Sections 306 and 498A and 34 of IPC. The applicant is in custody
since 17.11.2020.
02. As per prosecution story, deceased- Bulbul was married to co-
accused Deepak Rathore on 07.05.2013 and present applicant-
Tejrakan Rahore is the father-in-law of the deceased. The deceased
committed suicide by hanging. Out of the wedlock, one son was
born, who is 3 years of age. As per prosecution case, the deceased
committed suicide because she was harassed and beaten by her
husband for defaming his father. Present applicant is the father-in-
law of the deceased, who had ill intention with the deceased to
outrage her modesty. Though, with the intervention of the family
members of the deceased, it was apparently resolved that both the
parties live happily but the relationship did not improve as a result
of which the deceased committed suicide and accordingly, offence
was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons.
03. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is
innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this offence.
Co-accused, Sandeep Rathore has been released on bail vide order
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. No.45252/2021
(Tejkaran Rathore Vs. State of M.P.)
dated 25.08.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.41904/2021, therefore, the
present applicant is also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of
parity. It has been further stated that statements of all the
prosecution witnesses have been recorded by the trial court and the
bring out material contradictions inter-se and even though they have
supported the prosecution story, they have been declared hostile.
The only allegation against the present applicant is that of having ill
intentions towards the deceased. The said act as alleged by the
prosecution took place over two and half years before the deceased
committed suicide. The issue of remoteness of the act is said to have
instigated/abetted the suicide has been dealt with by this Court in
the case of Padmabai Vs. State of State of M.P. (Civil Appeal
No.4399/2005) decided on 19.07.2021. He further submits that the
applicant is permanent resident of district-Agar (Malwa) and he is in
custody since 17.11.2020. Under the above circumstances, prayer
for grant of bail may be considered on such terms and conditions, as
this Court deems fit and proper.
04. Per contra, learned panel lawyer for respondent - State
opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by stating
that at this stage, marshaling of prosecution witnesses is not
permissible because prosecution witnesses are still continuing
before the trial court. He placed reliance upon the judgment
delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Jaggi
Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Ors. (Cr.A. No.651/2007) decided on
30.07.2007. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has held as
under:-
"At the state of granting of bail, the Court can only
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. No.45252/2021
(Tejkaran Rathore Vs. State of M.P.)
go into the question of prima facie case established
for granting bail. It cannot go into the question of
credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by
the prosecution. The question of credibility and
reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be tested
during the trial."
05. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and
also the nature and gravity of the allegation and although, co-
accused Sandeep, who is husband of the deceased, has been released
on bail but the case of the present applicant is not similar to that of
the co-accused Sandeep because allegedly the deceased was mainly
harassed by the present applicant. Although, the present applicant
has filed statements of so many witnesses recorded by the trial court
but as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Satish Jagga (supra), this Court can only go into the question
of the prima facie case established for granting bail. At the stage of
consideration of bail, this Court cannot go into the question of
credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution.
In view of the evidence available on record without
commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to
allow the application. The present applicant is not entitled for grant
of bail. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed.
(Anil Verma)
Judge
N.R.
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA KUMAR
RAIPURIA
Date: 2021.10.26
19:06:51 +05'30'
