Rajasthan High Court
Babulal Swami S/O Shri Tarachand Swami vs The State Of Rajasthan on 27 February, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 605/2024
Babulal Swami S/o Shri Tarachand Swami, Aged About 19 Years,
R/o House No. 106, Swami Basti, Chamda Godam Ke Peeche,
Sikar House Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan Police Station Sanjay Circle
Jaipur North. (At Present In Central Jail, Since 13.09.2023).
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Bardhar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
27/02/2024
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was
arrested in connection with FIR No. 169/2023 registered at Police
Station Sanjay Circle, District Jaipur for the offence(s) under
Sections 306 of IPC.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the accused-applicant that
the accused-applicant is a young individual aged 19 years, who has
been falsely implicated in the matter. Learned counsel argued that in
the offense as alleged, the ingredients of Section 306 are not made out,
especially when material witnesses have tendered statements to the
effect that on the date of the incident, the accused-applicant was in a
different city i.e. Alwar. There are no criminal antecedents against the
accused-applicant and charge-sheet in the matter has already been
filed. The accused-applicant has been in judicial custody since
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-605/2024]
13.09.2023. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the offense of
abetment is not made as the accused-applicant and the deceased i.e.
sister-in-law of the accused-applicant, were in an admitted and
consensual extra-marital relationship. In support of the submissions
advanced herein-above, reliance was placed upon the judgments as
passed in Bail Application No. 33/2022 (Shilpa vs. Union
Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.) decided on 09/05/2022
and Criminal Appeal No. 1628/2022 (Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr.
vs. The Inspector of Police) decided on 12/10/2022.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the
instant bail application. In support of the said opposition, learned
counsel contended that the offense as alleged is heinous in nature and
the death of the deceased-victim has occurred within a short span of
her marital life. Moreover, the statements of material witnesses, such as
the sister of the deceased-victim, exhibit duress and coercion at the end
of the accused-applicant.
4. Heard and considered.
5. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both
the sides and taking note of the fact that the offense as alleged is
heinous in nature; that the death of the deceased-victim has occurred
within a short span of her marital life; that the extra-marital affair of
the accused-applicant and the deceased-victim is admitted and
undisputed; that the statements tendered by the material witnesses i.e.
sister of the deceased-victim, exhibits active coercion, duress and
blackmailing at the behest of and/or by the accused-applicant, prima
facie provoking the deceased-victim to commit suicide; that looking to
the nature of the proximate relationship between the accused-applicant
and the deceased-victim, the plausibility of the accused-applicant
tampering with the material witnesses cannot be ruled out and
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-605/2024]
cumulatively looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case
but without commenting upon the merits/demerits, this Court is inclined
to dismiss the instant bail application, at this stage.
6. As a result, the instant bail application is dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
ANIL SHARMA /4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
