SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jai Ram vs State on 16 January, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail No. 11631 / 2017
Jai Ram S/o Khinya Ram, By Caste Mali, Resident of Singiyo Wala
Bera, Khudecha, Police Station Pipar City, District Jodhpur. (In
Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Jodhpur)
—-Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Amardeep Lamba.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP.
Mr. Mukesh Mehra.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
16/01/2018

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material

available on record.

The instant second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in

connection with F.I.R. (C.R.) No.261/2016, registered at Police

Station Pipar City (Jodhpur) for the offences under Sections 498A,

306 and 406 IPC.

The first application for bail submitted on behalf of the

petitioner was rejected by this Court on 03.04.2017 giving him

liberty to move a fresh one after recording of the statement of the

first informant by the trial court. The petitioner and the deceased

Sahita were married 14 years ago. Sahita ended her own and her
(2 of 4)
[CRLMB-11631/2017]

two children’s lives by jumping into a water tank on 02.10.2016.

The first informant Birda Ram, being the brother of the deceased,

lodged an FIR against the petitioner (husband), father-in-law,

mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased

alleging that she was being harassed and humiliated in the

matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry and as a

culmination of their cruel acts, the accused persons murdered the

mother and the two children by drowning them into the water

tank. Initially, the case was registered for the offences under

Sections 302, 201 and 498A IPC. After investigation, a charge-

sheet was filed only against the petitioner for the offences under

Sections 498A, 306 and 406 IPC. Needless to say that benefit of

presumption is not available to the prosecution in the case at hand

as the marriage of the petitioner and the deceased Sahita took

place more than 14 years ago. In the statement of Birda Ram,

who was examined by the trial court on 27.11.2017, the highest

allegation regarding any cruel act of the accused with the

deceased before the fateful incident is in reference to the call

made by Sahita to her parental relatives two days before the

incident wherein, she alleged that her in-laws were beating her

and she was being threatened that she should die with her

children or else they would be killed. Shri Choudhary, learned Sr.

Counsel urges that in this last conversation of the deceased with

her maternal relatives, there is no reference of the petitioner

having harassed or humiliated her or having instigated her to

commit suicide. He thus urges that the petitioner, who is in

custody in this case from 09.10.2016, deserves to be enlarged on
(3 of 4)
[CRLMB-11631/2017]

bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Mehra,

learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently

opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel.

Shri Mehra contended that as a matter of fact, it is a case of

murder plain and simple. He further contended that as the

petitioner was living separately from his other relatives, manifestly

the reason behind the unnatural deaths of the lady and two

children has to be attributed to the petitioner. However, he could

not dispute the fact that the trial court has framed charge against

the petitioner only for the offence under Section 306 IPC and not

under Section 302 IPC. On perusing the statement of Birda Ram,

the first informant, it is apparent that no pertinent allegation of

demand of dowry or specific instance of harassment or humiliation

given to the deceased has been attributed to the present

petitioner. The argument advanced by Shri Mehra is fallacious on

the face of the record because even in Birda Ram’s sworn

statement, there is no reference of the petitioner in the telephonic

conversation held between the deceased and her maternal

relatives two days before the incident in which she complained

about the conduct of her in-laws.

In this background and having regard to the facts and

circumstances available on the record, but without expressing any

opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the

petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 439

Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Jai Ram
(4 of 4)
[CRLMB-11631/2017]

arrested in connection with the F.I.R. (C.R.) No.261/2016,

registered at Police Station Pipar City (Jodhpur) shall be released

on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and

two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the

learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court

on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

Tikam/61

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation