Hansraj vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 1132 Raj

(1 of 3) [CRLMB-934/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. III Bail Application No. 934/2022

Hansraj S/o Shri Shera Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 11 Arm, Police Station Nai Mandi Gharsana, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar)

----Petitioner Versus State, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr Rakesh Matoria For Respondent(s) : Mr S.S. Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

Judgment / Order

24/01/2022

This third bail application under Sec.439 CrPC has been filed

by the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with FIR

No.77/2020 registered at Police Station Nai Mandi, Gharsana,

District Sri Ganganagar, for offence under Secs.306, 498A IPC.

First bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on

01.10.2020 after detailed discussion, on the ground that

statements of witnesses Sandeep Kumar and Parmeshwari Devi

were yet to be recorded by the trial court. Thereafter, the Second

bail application of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated

01.10.2021 because by that time the statement of Parmeshwari

Devi were not recorded. The statements of Parmeshwari Devi have

been recorded on 23.12.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in their

statements, the witnesses denied the allegations and no specific

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-934/2022]

date or month about said demand of dowry was mentioned. It is

also admitted by PW1 Sandeep that no specific date for dowry

demand was mentioned, the report Ex.P1 was not submitted on

the same day but on the next day and earlier 2-3 times also his

sister (deceased) was expelled from the matrimonial house,

however, he could not state date or month of so-called incidents.

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

there is no evidence of instigation soon before the death.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments and

submitted that PW1 Sandeep categorically stated in his

examination-in-chief that on the date of the incident i.e.

19.03.2020 one phone call was received by mother of the

deceased. It is further submitted that a letter was written by the

accused-petitioner in regard to demand of dowry, that if the

demand is not completed then she may be killed by the accused-

petitioner. On the very day at about 5-6PM phone call was

received that the deceased has passed away.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case,

particularly statements of PW1 Sandeep and PW2 Parmeshwari

Devi, in which they not only supported the prosecution story in the

examination-in-chief but also in their cross-examination.

PW1 Sandeep stated that earlier 2-3 times meeting for

settlement of the demand was conducted at their home. It is also

stated by PW1 Sandeep that it is wrong that rupees one Lac were

not demanded from his sister and therefore particular date was

not mentioned in the report. It is also wrong to say that names of

the mediator was not mentioned because no mediation was

conducted.

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-934/2022]

Similarly, PW2 Parmeshwari Devi supported the story of the

prosecution and stated that at the time of birth of boy to her

daughter in the year 2015, motorcycle and rupees One Lac were

demanded by the accused-petitioner and when demand was not

completed, they tortured the deceased. She also stated that on

the date of the incident, her daughter called and told that if the

demand is not completed, they may kill her and on the very same

day at about 6PM one phone-call was received that Anju has

committed suicide. She stated that it is wrong to say that there

was no dowry demand by the accused-petitioner and therefore no

date or month of the demand was mentioned. It is also wrong to

say that there was dispute between the deceased and her

husband Hansraj due to character of Hansraj and that is why she

has committed suicide. It is wrong to say that dowry was not

demanded from my daughter Anju and she was not instigated for

committing suicide.

In view of the above, without commenting on merits, I am

not inclined to accept the present bail application of the petitioner

at this stage. This third bail application is dismissed.

This order will not affect the final disposal of the case of the

accused-petitioner before the learned trial court.

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J 53-MMA/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)