Rajasthan High Court
Parmil @ Praveen S/O Hariram vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:2457) on 16 January, 2024
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2024:RJ-JP:2457]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 239/2024
Parmil @ Praveen S/o Hariram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Gothda, Police Station Tijara, District Alwar At Present Lodged In
The Sub Jail, Behror (Alwar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg with
Mr. Varun Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Judgment / Order
16/01/2024
This bail application has been filed by the petitioner in
connection with F.I.R. No. 156/2022, registered at Police Station
Harsora District, Alwar for the offences mentioned therein.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been implicated in the present case without there being any
cogent evidence. Counsel further submits that the Investigation
Officer in the present case has been examined by the trial Court
and in his examination he has stated that there is no evidence of
demand of dowry and also there is no evidence of last seen with
the deceased. Counsel further submits that the present case is
based on circumstantial evidence and there is no evidence
available on the record of last seen which connects the petitioner
with the allegation of charge of 302 IPC with a chain of
circumstances.
[2024:RJ-JP:2457] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-239/2024]
Counsel further submits that the petitioner has two kids one
is of four years of age and another is of two years of age and they
are residing with their grandparents and because of the arrest of
the petitioner, the grandparents and kids are suffering a great
hardship.
Counsel further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars
since 11.07.2022 and till date out of total 38 prosecution
witnesses only 8 have been examined by the trial Court and trial
will still take further more time. Therefore, the petitioner may be
enlarged on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail
application and submits that the petitioner was having illicit
relations with a lady and when the deceased objected she was put
to death by the petitioner in conspiracy with other co-accused
person. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the
allegations against the petitioner are much serious and therefore
the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.
Considered the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor, perused the material
made available on record including the challan papers as also the
statements of the prosecution witnesses examined so far.
The petitioner has been charged for the offences under
Section 304B and so also 302 IPC along with other offences. PW8-
Mritunjaya Mishra, Investigation Officer in his cross-examination
has stated that there is no eye-witness of the incident and also
there is no evidence of last seen of the petitioner at the place of
occurrence. There is no evidence available on the record of
demand of dowry at the time of marriage. The Investigation
[2024:RJ-JP:2457] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-239/2024]
Officer(PW8) has also stated that there is no evidence on record in
regard to the illicit relations between the petitioner and the other
who is lady co-accused in this case.
On perusal of the statement of the Investigation Officer
(PW8), it is found that no evidence of the husband of the lady with
whom the allegations of illicit relationships have been levelled,
were recorded.
Learned Public Prosecutor has also failed to answer the query
put by the Court that why the petitioner has been charged; one
for offence under Section 304B IPC and other for offence under
Section 302 IPC.
On this issue the Court has considered the judgment dated
02.07.2013 delivered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of
"Jasvinder Saini & Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)"
(Criminal Appeal No.819 /2013).
This Court while deciding this bail application is taking note
of the fact that the petitioner has two kids; one is of four years of
age and other is of two years of age, who are residing with the old
aged grandparents and also the fact that the petitioner is behind
the bars since 11.07.2022 and till date out of 38 prosecution
witnesses, only 8 witnesses have been examined by the trial
Court.
Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and on perusal
of the material available on record and other things as stated
above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits
and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the
accused-petitioner on bail.
[2024:RJ-JP:2457] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-239/2024]
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed
that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he
furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction
of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before
the trial Court and any other Court to which the matter is
transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when
called upon to do so.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
Sharma NK, Dy. Registrar/1
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
