Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pannaram vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 November, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Appli. No. 9745/2022
Pannaram S/o Mohanram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Sadhuna Ps
Panchu Bikaner (At Present Lodged At Central Jail Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chotia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
22/11/2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
The petitioner(s) has/have been arrested in FIR
No.103/2017 of Police Station Panchu, District Bikaner for the
offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 498A, 304B and 302
IPC. He/she/they has/have preferred this/these second bail
application(s) under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
after rejection of the earlier bail application of the petitioner,
as many as nine prosecution witnesses have been examined
before the trial court. It is argued that PW-1 and PW-2,
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-9745/2022]
brother and uncle of the deceased respectively though have
alleged that the petitioner used to harass the deceased for
the purpose of dowry and has also treated her with cruelty,
but at the same time, have admitted that they never
complained with regard to the behaviour of the petitioner
with the deceased anywhere. It is further submitted that the
important prosecution witnesses such as neighbours of the
petitioner have not supported the prosecution story and
turned hostile. It is also argued that as a matter of fact, it is
a case of suicide, but the complainant party with the intention
to implicate the petitioner has lodged a false case against him
as also levelled false allegations regarding harassment and
cruelty in their court statement. It is submitted that evidence
of the brother and uncle of the deceased is not reliable as the
same lack corroboration. Learned counsel has submitted that
as the petitioner is in custody since 8.9.2017 and trial against
him has not been concluded till date, therefore, he may be
enlarged on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application.
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 bail
to the petitioner(s) under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this/these second bail application(s) filed
under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is/are allowed and it is directed that
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-9745/2022]
petitioner(s) - Pannaram S/o Mohanram shall be released on
bail in connection with FIR No.103/2017 of Police Station
Panchu, District Bikaner provided he/she/they execute(s) a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and
solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of
learned trial court for his/her/their appearance before that
court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called
upon to do so till the completion of the trial.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
171-msrathore/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
