Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jitendra vs State on 9 March, 2021

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11914/2020

1. Jitendra S/o Jasveer, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Village Bandakhedi, P.S. Sadar, Hisar, District Hisar (Hariyana).

2. Jasveer S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 53 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Village Bandakhedi, P.S. Sadar, Hisar, District Hisar (Hariyana).

----Petitioners Versus

State of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioners : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary

For Respondent : Mr. Laxman Solanki, P.P.

For Complainant         : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi
Present in Person : Mr. Brij Mohan                      Aswal,      C.O.,   Rajgarh,
                    District Churu.



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                             Judgment / Order

09/03/2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the

material on record.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with

FIR/CR Case No.58/2020 of Police Station Siddhmukh, District

Churu for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406,

323, 313 and 506 I.P.C. They have preferred this anticipatory bail

application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

allegations levelled in the impugned FIR against the petitioners

(2 of 5) [CRLMB-11914/2020]

are absolutely false. It is argued that marriage of the petitioner

No.1 was solemnized with the complainant on 04.02.2020. It is

submitted that the petitioner No.1 is a constable in Haryana Police

whereas, the complainant is a teacher in the Education

Department of State of Haryana. Few days after their marriage on

04.02.2020, the petitioner No.1 and the complainant were shifted

to Fatehabad where, the petitioner No.1 was posted as a

constable. On 22.04.2020, the complainant lodged an FIR at Police

Station Hisar alleging that on 24.02.2020 her father-in-law i.e. the

petitioner No.2 had attempted to outrage her modesty, however,

she rescued herself and complained regarding the same to the

petitioner No.1, but he did not pay any heed to it. Thereafter on

18.03.2020, the maternal uncle of the petitioner No.1 came to

their house in Fatehabad and there, he had also tried to outrage

the modesty of the complainant. Learned counsel for the

petitioners has submitted that in the said FIR, the Police after

investigation had proposed to file a negative final report. It is

further submitted that after the said FIR, another FIR bearing

No.313 has also been lodged at Police Station Hisar by father of

the complainant, in which, it is alleged that the Baleno car given in

dowry to the petitioner No.1 has been damaged deliberately by

the petitioner No.1. It is submitted that in the said FIR also, the

police have not found the allegations levelled as proved. Learned

counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that allegation

against the petitioner No.1 of forcible termination of pregnancy of

the complainant has also not been found to be proved by the

police till date. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also

submitted that though, no such allegation of unnatural sex has

been levelled by the complainant in the impugned FIR, but later

(3 of 5) [CRLMB-11914/2020]

on, the said allegation has been levelled by the complainant

falsely. It is argued that after the marriage of the petitioner No.1

and the complainant, both of them were shifted to Fatehabad on

02.03.2020 and the complainant lived there up to 14.04.2020 and

from that day, she is residing in her maternal house only. It is

submitted that allegation of outraging modesty of the complainant

levelled against the petitioner No.2 is absolutely false and no

satisfactory explanation has been given by the complainant for

alleging the same after a delay of more than one month. Learned

counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that pursuant to

the directions given by this Court, the petitioners have already

joined the investigation and have also returned all the 'streedhan',

which was with them, in such circumstances, the custodial

interrogation of the petitioners is not at all necessary. It is also

submitted that the petitioner No.1 is in government service and if

he is arrested then his career would be adversely affected. It is,

thus, prayed that the petitioners may be given benefit of

anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned

counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail

application and argued that the allegations levelled in the

impugned FIR are not false and the same have been proved

during the course of investigation by the police. Learned counsel

for the complainant has submitted that the complainant party has

furnished a recorded conversation of the petitioner No.2 with the

brother of the complainant, which took place on 24.02.2020 and

from the said conversation, it is clear that the petitioner No.2 was

demanding dowry from the complainant. It is further submitted

that the allegation of termination of pregnancy of the complainant

(4 of 5) [CRLMB-11914/2020]

levelled against the petitioner No.1 is also not false as from the

medical report, it is clear that on 09.03.2020, the pregnancy test

of the complainant was found positive and soon after that, the

petitioner No.1 had forced her to take a pill for the purpose of

termination of her pregnancy. It is also submitted that the FIR in

respect of damage of the car given as dowry is also not false as

the complainant had already informed the police a day prior to the

said incident that the car given in the dowry could be damaged by

the petitioners and their relatives. It is also submitted that though

the petitioners have joined the investigation with the police,

however, all the 'streedhan' of the complainant have not been

returned by them and almost all her ornaments have been

withheld by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the complainant

has, therefore, argued that in the facts and circumstances of the

case and for the purpose of recovery of the 'streedhan' of the

complainant, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is

necessary, hence, this anticipatory bail application preferred by

the petitioners may be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

diary. It appears that soon after the marriage of the petitioner

No.1 and the complainant, some dispute arose between them. The

petitioner No.1 and the complainant are in government service

and after their marriage on 04.02.2020, they shifted to Fatehabad

in first week of March, 2020 and lived there up to 14.04.2020, as

such the complainant remained in her in-laws house at

Bandakhedi for less than a month. It is not alleged that after that,

the petitioner No.2 had ever visited Fatehabad where the

petitioner No.1 and the complainant were residing. From the case

diary, it appears that the petitioners have already joined the

(5 of 5) [CRLMB-11914/2020]

investigation and they have also been interrogated by the

Investigating Officer and some dowry items have also been

returned to the complainant party, including a cash amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances

of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the

accused petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is

allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners

- (1) Jitendra S/o Jasveer and (2) Jasveer S/o Om Prakash in

connection with FIR/CR Case No.58/2020 of Police Station

Siddhmukh, District Churu, they shall be enlarged on bail provided

each of them furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-

with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following

conditions:-

(i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;