Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nirmal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:9459) on 22 February, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:9459]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1432/2024
Nirmal Singh S/o Banwarilal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Bahawalwasi, P.s. Abohar, Dist. Fazilka (Punjab). At Present
Sunderpura Head, Tehsil Sadulsahar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
(At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Rawatsar)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mangatraj S/o Balraj, R/o Ward No. 4, Karanpur, P.s.
Karanpur, Dist. Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mhaipal Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
22/02/2024
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of
accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
2. Concerned Police Station Rawatsar
3. District Hanumangarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 304-B of the IPC
5. Offences added, if any Section 498-A of the IPC
6. Date of passing of impugned 25.01.2024
order
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no
case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his
incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the
case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-
[2024:RJ-JD:9459] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1432/2024]
petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures
and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application
and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of
accused on bail.
4. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the impugned order and material available on
record.
1. 5. Perusal of the material revealing that marriage of Sonu
(deceased) was solemnized with petitioner three years prior to
the incident. It is specifically mentioned in the FIR that for a
considerable period, they spent happy married life without any
complain. She died on 29.09.2023 only whereafter, the allegation
regarding demand of dowry has been levelled in the FIR. In a
report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., in first para of Page No.2 it has
specifically mentioned that there was no demand of dowry at the
time of marriage. Thus, it is reflecting that while solemnizing the
marriage or before it, there was no demand as a condition for
marriage. The word "dowry" has not been defined in the Indian
Penal Code and the term can be understood by the definition given
in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 as per which the
word dowry has an extricable nexus with the marriage and it should
have been in connection with the marriage only. It may be before
the marriage at the time of marriage or whereafter to an unending
period but in any case, the demand must be a condition for the
marriage; reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble the
[2024:RJ-JD:9459] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1432/2024]
Supreme Court in the case of Satvir Singh and Ors. vs. State of
Punjab and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2828. In this view of the matter, I
see no reason to allow further incarceration of the petitioner. Before
parting it is made clear that the observations hereinabove are
limited to the justifiable disposal of the bail application which would
have no bearance on the further course of trial at any stage of the
trial. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to
conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed
suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present
matter.
6. It is nigh well settled law that at a pre-conviction stage; bail
is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The
purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial
would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that
he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him.
Otherwise, it is the rule of Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be
presumed innocent until the guilt is proved.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as
named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he
furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the
dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
88-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
