Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Surendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24383) on 20 May, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:24383]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 5823/2025

Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Kishan Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village Thimoli, Tehsil Ramgarh Sethan, Dist. Sikar (Lodged In
Sub Jail, Ratangarh)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Hardik Gautam
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP


         HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order 20/05/2025

1. The present second bail application has been filed under

Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.),

2023 on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in connection

with F.I.R. No.15/2021 dated 12.01.2021, registered at Police

Station Ratangarh, District Churu, for the offences under Sections

498-A, 304-B, 34 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first bail

application filed by the petitioner was allowed to be withdrawn

vide order dated 27.03.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this

Court in CRLMB No.548/2023 with liberty to file fresh bail

application after recording the evidence of material witnesses.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

evidence of material witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 (mother and

father of the deceased) have been recorded and thus, the second

bail application has been filed.

[2025:RJ-JD:24383] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-5823/2025]

3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the charge-sheet are

that the marriage of the deceased (Rekha alias Ritu), took place

on 03.02.2014 with the petitioner herein and out of this wedlock,

a daughter was born. After the marriage, the deceased and her

husband used to argue over domestic issues, which caused

distress to the deceased. Also, the in-laws as well as the present

petitioner used to harass the deceased by making illegal demand

of dowry. The petitioner went to Dubai for his earning and the

harassment to the deceased did not stop. Due to harassment and

cruelty faced by her at the hands of the petitioner (husband),

mother-in-law and father-in-law and other co-accused, the

deceased became mentally distressed and hanged herself in a

room within her house and on 28.09.2020.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has falsely been implicated in this case. He further draws attention

of this Court towards the charge-sheet and submits that PW-1

(Raju Devi), who is the mother of deceased, has stated in her

Court statement that immediately after marriage, the mother-in-

law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law started taunting her and

harassing her while raising demand for dowry. He further submits

that she has stated that even after a daughter was born, she was

subjected to cruelty and her husband went to foreign land,

however, she was subjected to cruelty by raising demand of dowry

by her mother-in-law, brother-in-law, aunt-in-law and sister-in-

law everyday and have killed her daughter. She has also stated

that her daughter used to tell her on phone that sometimes the

brother-in-law and sister-in-law were also harassing her while

demanding dowry. He further submits that PW-1 (mother of the

[2025:RJ-JD:24383] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-5823/2025]

deceased) has stated that on the day of incident i.e. 28.09.2020,

she received a phone call from her daughter that she is being

harassed by her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and

two brother-in-laws and immediately she disconnected the phone.

Thereafter, she was informed by her son Mahesh on the phone

that her daughter is disturbed, upon which, they went to her

matrimonial house and saw her daughter was hanging with the

ceiling fan. Learned counsel for the petitioner also draws attention

of this Court towards the cross-examination of PW-1 (mother of

the deceased) in which she has admitted that her son-in-law i.e.

the present petitioner was residing at Dubai at the time of incident

and that her son Mahesh and the present petitioner were residing

together and on account of the said incident, the petitioner and

her son Mahesh came to India by the same flight.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also draws attention of

this Court towards the statements of PW-2 (father of the

deceased) who in his cross-examination has stated that the

petitioner's father, mother and uncle used to harass his daughter

while demanding dowry again and again. He has also stated that

sometimes the petitioner also used to demand for dowry. He

further submits that PW-2 (father of the deceased) has also stated

that his son Mahesh and the petitioner both were residing at Dubai

and after the death of his daughter, they came to India in the

same flight. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

that out of 31 prosecution witnesses, only two witnesses have

been cross-examined and the petitioner is in judicial custody since

23.09.2022. He thus, submits that the petitioner has already

suffered long incarceration for a period of almost two years and

[2025:RJ-JD:24383] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-5823/2025]

seven months and the trial of the case will take long time,

therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail

application, however, is not in a position to refute that PW-1 and

PW-2, who is mother and father of the deceased in their evidence

have stated that the petitioner was in Dubai and was not present

in India at the time of incident. He also not in a position to refute

that majorly the allegation of demand of dowry and cruelty have

been leveled upon the in-laws of the deceased. He also not in a

position to refute that out of 31 prosecution witnesses, only two

witnesses have been cross-examined and the petitioner is in

incarceration since 23.09.2022.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

7. After analyzing the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 (mother

and father of the deceased), this Court finds that though

allegation of demanding dowry upon the petitioner has also been

leveled, however, they both have also admitted that the petitioner

was at Dubai soon after the child was born to them. Smt. Raju

Devi (mother of the deceased) has leveled allegation of cruelty

and demand of dowry upon the in-laws of the deceased on

account of which her daughter committed suicide. As per the

evidence of PW-1 and 2, a call was made to them by the deceased

informing that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law

are harassing her for dowry and there was no allegation leveled

against the petitioner nor she has informed her parents that the

petitioner was harassing while making demand of dowry through

telephonic conversation which forced her to commit suicide.

[2025:RJ-JD:24383] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-5823/2025]

8. This Court, takes into consideration the judgment passed by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satvir Singh and Ors. vs.

State of Punjab and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0588/2001 (2001

8 SCC 633) and the relevant part of the judgment is reproduced

hereunder:-

"22. It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304B is to be invoked. But it should have happened "soon before her death". The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words "soon before her death" is to emphasis the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the death would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept "soon before her death"."

9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, and having

regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case as

available on record and looking to the fact that the petitioner is in

judicial custody since 23.09.2022 and the fact that the trial will

consume time and without expressing any opinion on the

merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the view that the

petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

[2025:RJ-JD:24383] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-5823/2025]

10. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 of

Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023 is allowed

and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Surendra Kumar

S/o Shri Kishan Lal, arrested in relation to F.I.R. No.15/2021