Rajasthan High Court
Mahesh Kumar Saini S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 July, 2021
Bench: Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6207/2021
Mahesh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Shankar Lal Saini, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Nimdiya Ki Dhani Peeli Ki Talai Amer Tehsil Amer Dist.
Jaipur (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanchit Tamra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Ola, PP
Mr. Kapil Gupta for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
15/07/2021
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in
connection with FIR No.04/2021, registered at Police Station
Amer, Jaipur City (North), for the offences under Sections 195-A,
306, 387 and 506 of IPC.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
and learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the
complainant. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated
that this is matter of love and affairs; due to some enmity the
accused-petitioner has wrongly been implicated in this case. It is
further stated that earlier one FIR was lodged by mother of
accused-petitioner, which is registered as 441/2020 and counter-
blast to that FIR No.0004/2021 was registered by brother-Jigar
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-6207/2021]
Saini of deceased on 06.01.2021 for the offence under Section
195A, 306 and 387 and 506 of IPC and it is stated that one
member of the complainant party, is senior Police Officer and
misused his powers to harass the accused-petitioner; charge-
sheet has been filed. It is further stated that there is no evidence
against the accused-petitioner only on the basis of statement of
deceased recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. in another case
the accused-petitioner has wrongly been implicated in this case;
whereas it is decided by Hon'ble Apex Court "if opportunity of
cross-examination not given to the accused-petitioner then the
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. cannot be admitted into
evidence at the trial under Section 33 of the Evidence Act.
Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of Selvam Vs.
State (Madras) (DB): Criminal Appeal NO.716 of 2018 and
Crl.M.P. NO.3364 of 2018 D/d 30.04.2019, Rohit Vs. State of
Haryana: Crl. Misc. No. M-7574 of 2018 D/d.14.3.2018 and
Vaijnath Kondiba Khandle Vs. State of Maharashtra, (SC):
Criminal Appeal No.765 of 2018(Arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No.2600 of 2018) D/d.17.05.2018.
"8. In the backdrop of these two lines of case, we
have gone through the material on record. There is
no suicide note left behind by the deceased and the
only material on record is in the form of assertions
made by his wife in her reporting to the police. It is
true that if a situation is created deliberately so as to
drive a person to commit suicide, there would be
room for attracting section 306 of IPC. However, the
facts on record in the present case are completely
inadequate and insufficient. As a superior officer, if
some work was assigned by the applicant to the
deceased, merely on that count it cannot be said that
there was any guilty mind or criminal intent. The
exigencies of work and the situation may call for
certain action on part of a superior including stopping
of salary of a junior officer for a month. That action
simplicitor cannot be considered to be a pointer
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-6207/2021]
against such superior officer. The allegations in the
FIR are completely inadequate and do not satisfy the
requirements under Section 306 of IPC. In our view,
the facts in the present case stand on a footing better
than that in Madan Mohan Singh (supra) and there is
absolutely no room for invoking provisions of section
306 of IPC. We are of the firm view that the interest
of justice demands that the proceedings initiated
against the appellant are required to be quashed."
With this submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for
grant of benefit of bail to the accused petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for
the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application of
the accused petitioner and stated that it is wrongly stated that this
FIR is counterblast of that FIR in regard to the FIR No.441/2020;
negative final report submitted by the Police in this case; Uncle of
deceased is only constable and not a Senior Officer. It is further
stated that the FIR is like dying declaration, which is made by
deceased just before the death to the complainant-Jigar Saini i.e.
brother of deceased. It is further stated that one another FIR
No.678/2018 P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur was lodged against the
accused petitioner, which is available on record and charge-sheet
has also been filed in the said case, one pen drive is also a part of
that charge-sheet, an script was prepared by the Police in that
case; victim was threatened by the accused petitioner for
assassination. It is further stated that 5 other cases pending
against the accused-petitioner; also the accused petitioner spread
the photographs of deceased alongwith the accused petitioner at
the time of deceased's funeral and thereafter one separate
complaint was made in this regard on 12.01.2021, which is
available on record as page number 36 and 37 of the charge-
sheet.
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-6207/2021]
The facts of judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner are
different to the present case, therefore, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly, the antecedents of the
accused petitioner as well as the statements available on record,
this court does not find fit the case to grant benefit of bail to the
accused-petitioner, therefore, the bail application is rejected.
However, petitioner is free to file fresh bail application after
recording the statement of complainant before the trial court.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
TN/8
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
