Mukesh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1153 Raj

[2023/RJJD/002897]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12288/2022

Mukesh S/o Ram Lal Sansi, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Pander Ps Pander Dist. Bhilwara (At Present In Dist. Jail Bhilwara)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhushan Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Sharma, PP Mr. Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, P.S Pander, Bhilwara

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

30/01/2023

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.

109/2021 of Police Station Pander, District Bhilwara for the offence

punishable under Section 304-B, 302, 120B IPC. He has preferred

this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Head Constable

who has been examined as PW/4 has categorically stated that the

the video which was prepared at the time of investigation was not

prepared by an independent person and the deceased was not in a

position to give her statement to police or any other person. It is

further argued that in the first part of video recorded by the

deceased, a specific allegation was made against husband and

brother-in-law for beating and demanding a sum of Rs. 6 lacs. In

the later part, it has only been mentioned that her mother-in-law,

father-in-law and brother-in-law gave her poisonous substance. It

[2023/RJJD/002897] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-12288/2022]

is also argued that husband has already been enlarged on bail,

therefore, the petitioner who is father-in-law may also be enlarged

on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed

the bail application and submits that according to recorded video,

a specific allegation has been levelled against the husband,

brother-in-law with regard to beating and that the father-in-law,

mother-in-law and brother-in-law gave poisonous substance to

the deceased.

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and

carefully gone through the record.

The second bail application filed by the petitioner was

rejected by this Court on 06.07.2022. Thereafter, two more

prosecution witnesses PW/3 Devi lal and PW/4 Bhanwar lal have

been examined. PW/3 has also specifically mentioned that

deceased was in a position to speak and he prepared the video of

the deceased in which specific allegation has been levelled against

all the accused persons including the petitioner. So far as the

accused husband is concerned, he has been released on bail being

juvenile, therefore, case of the petitioner is distinguishable.

No case is made out for enlarging the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, this third bail application is hereby rejected.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 106-BJSH/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)