Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rakesh Soni vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:11021) on 24 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:11021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 95/2023
Rakesh Soni S/o Shri Ghishu Lal Soni, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Madhuban Colony Badganv Road Shivganj Dist. Sirohi
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ankush Soni S/o Rakesh Soni, R/o Vaishali Nagar Mps
School Ajmer Dist. Ajmer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopikishan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. B.S. Sandhu
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
24/02/2025
The present bail cancellation application has been filed by
the complainant against the order dated 22.09.2023 passed by
the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act)
Cases, Sirohi whereby, the learned trial court granted bail to the
respondent no.2 in connection with FIR No. 96/2023 registered at
Police Station Sheoganj, District Sirohi for offence under Sections
498A and 304 B IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the marriage
between the deceased daughter and respondent no.2 took place
on 09.02.2023 and the deceased was turned out of matrimonial
house on 22.05.2023 and just after three days, she committed
suicide due to harassment and cruelty meted out to her for dowry.
Thus, after a short span of three and half months of marriage,
[2025:RJ-JD:11021] (2 of 5) [CRLBC-95/2023]
complainant's daughter was forced to commit suicide. An FIR No.
96/2023 came to be registered at Police Station, Sheoganj for
offence under Section 498A and 304 B IPC on the same day i.e.
22.05.2023. The accused respondent no.2 preferred an
anticipatory bail application, which was dismissed by Bench of
this Court, however, he was permitted to surrender before the
trial court and move a regular bail application. The respondent
even preferred a misc. petition for quashing of FIR being S.B.
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3945/2023 which was disposed of vide
order dated 19.09.2023 with liberty to the respondent to file a
representation before the Superintendent of Police and the
Superintendent of Police was directed to consider the
representation.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
respondent no.2 surrendered before the trial court on 19.09.2023
and was remanded to police custody till 21.09.2023 and on
22.09.2023, the respondent no.2 filed a regular bail application
which was allowed on the same day and he was ordered to be
released on bail. It is submitted that a perusal of impugned order
dated 22.09.2023 would go to show that the bail has been
granted to the respondent no.2 with the observation that the
allegation against the respondent is that of offence under Section
498A and 304 B IPC which is not punishable with life
imprisonment or death sentence. It is argued that as per Section
304B which deals with dowry death, the punishment extends from
minimum term of seven years to imprisonment for life, therefore,
the trial court has committed illegality in granting bail to the
respondent no.2 without considering the provisions of law. It is
[2025:RJ-JD:11021] (3 of 5) [CRLBC-95/2023]
argued that there is specific allegation against the respondent
no.2 with regard to cruelty meted out to deceased and death of
deceased was caused within a short spell of time, therefore, the
trial court was not justified in granting regular bail to the
respondent no.2 during investigation, without considering the
allegations and gravity of the offence. Thus, it is prayed that the
impugned order dated 22.09.2023 may be quashed and the bail
granted to the respondent no.2 may be cancelled.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Mr. B.S
Sandhu vehemently argued that the trial court after considering
entire facts and circumstances granted bail to the respondent
no.2. So far as the observations made by the trial court are
concerned, the same appears to be typographical/clerical error
and same cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail. Learned
counsel for the respondent placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ramcharan Vs. State of M.P.
reported in (2004) 13 SCC 617, Nityanand Rai Vs. State of Bihar &
Anr reported in (2005) 4 SCC 178 and Dolat Ram & Ors Vs. State
of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349.
I have heard counsels for the parties and gone through the
record.
It is not in dispute that the the marriage between the
deceased and respondent no.2 took place on 09.02.2023 and just
after three and half months of marriage, the daughter of
complainant committed suicide. The accused respondent no.2
preferred an anticipatory bail application, which was dismissed by
this Court, however, he was permitted to surrender before the
trial court and move a regular bail application. Accordingly, the
[2025:RJ-JD:11021] (4 of 5) [CRLBC-95/2023]
respondent no.2 surrendered before the trial court on 19.09.2023
and was remanded to police custody till 21.09.2023 and on
22.09.2023, the respondent no.2 filed a regular bail application
which was allowed on the same day with the observation that the
allegation against the respondent is that of offence under Section
498A and 304 B IPC which is not punishable with life
imprisonment or death sentence. Apparently, the offence under
Section 304B IPC is punishable by imprisonment for a minimum of
seven years and up to life imprisonment and therefore, the
observation of learned court below while granting bail to the
respondent no.2 is per se illegal. Further, the manner in which the
bail has been granted to the respondent no.2 just after three days
of police custody, raises questions about the legality of order
dated 22.09.2023 disregarding the gravity of offence, as the
offence relates to dowry death committed just after three and half
months of marriage. So far as the judgment cited by counsel for
the respondent no.2 are concerned, this Court is of the opinion
that each case must be considered in the light of its facts and
circumstances. The principles laid down in previous rulings,
though significant, cannot be mechanically applied to all cases
without due regard to the specificities of the matter at hand.
In the light of above discussion, the present application for
cancellation of bail is allowed. The order dated 22.09.2023 passed
by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act)
Cases, Sirohi is hereby set aside. Respondent no.2 is directed to
surrender before the trial court within a period of 15 days from
today and the trial court is directed to pass a fresh order upon the
[2025:RJ-JD:11021] (5 of 5) [CRLBC-95/2023]
bail application, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the
parties.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
54-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
