—

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Allahdeen Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:11937) on 5 March, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:11937]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1987/2024

Taju Khan S/o Shri Rahim Khan, Aged About 73 Years, R/o
Sardarpura Kallan, Tehsil Didwana, Dist. Didwana Kuchaman.
(Presently Lodged At Sub Jail, Merta)
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
—-Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1457/2024
Allahdeen Khan S/o Sh Jubdi Khan, Aged About 84 Years, R/o
Jharod Police Station Maulasar Tehsil And Dist Didwana
Kuchaman (Raj) (Presently Lodged In Sub Jail Didwana)
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
—-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Firoz Khan
Mr. Pradeep Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Mehla, P.P.
Mr. Kaushal Gautam

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

05/03/2024

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of

filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the

instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the

matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No. Particulars of the Case
1. FIR Number 15/2024

(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:04:55 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:11937] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-1987/2024]

2. Concerned Police Station Maulasar
3. District Didwana-Kuchaman
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 498A, 302 and
120B of IPC
5. Offences added, if any Section 306 of IPC
6. Date of passing of impugned 09.02.2024
order (Taju Khan)
7. Date of passing of impugned 25.01.2024
order (Allahdeen Khan)

2. The concise facts of the case as alleged in the FIR lodged by

the complainant are that he married his two daughters to two

brothers. A girl of seven years and a boy of five years was

born to one of his daughters. Thereafter, there was

discontentment in the in-laws of the daughters pertaining to

lesser dowry paid to them. The husbands of the daughters

worked in the Gulf and they had divorced their wives both

orally and vide notice from abroad. Both the girls were made

to leave from their marital home but the complainant made

them go back and stay there with the help of police. It is

further stated in the FIR that on 18.01.2024, the girls shared

with their father that some relatives of their husbands had

come and that they were planning something. On

19.01.2024, when the complainant and his son called them,

they did not answer and ultimately, the news of their death

came to the fore. Hence, an FIR was lodged.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no

case for the alleged offences is made out against them and

their incarceration is not warranted. They are distant relatives

and did not live in the same house as the two deceased

(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:04:55 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:11937] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-1987/2024]

persons. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that

may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and

they have been made accused based on conjectures and

surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for

the complainant oppose the bail applications and submit that

the present cases are not fit for enlargement of accused on

bail.

5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties

and have perused the material available on record. Initially in

this matter, the FIR got lodged for the offence of murder but

during investigation, it was revealed that the two women

killed the two children and then committed suicide. It is a

very unfortunate incident and it seems that the two women

were ill-fated from both the sides; marital as well as paternal.

It is appearing from a reading of the record that on one hand,

the husbands of the deceased were working out of the

country and they had the intention of divorcing them. The in-

laws of the two women were also causing trouble to them and

it can be expected from the facts and circumstances that they

must have become a bothersome presence in the household

of their in-laws given that their husbands had divorced them

and did not wish to continue any relation with them. On the

other hand, the parents of the two women are no less

responsible than the in-laws as when the husbands of their

two daughters had sent a notice of divorce and their in-laws

(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:04:55 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:11937] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-1987/2024]

were ill-treating them then what can be a reason so

compelling that the father of the deceased daughters

forcefully put his daughters into that house again to bear

further agony.

6. It is so sickening to learn of such an untoward incident and

this Court is forced to wonder what would have been the

circumstances that could propel a mother to end the lives of

her children and commit suicide. They must have found

themselves to be in a critical situation where their husbands

have left them without so much as a communication in a

decent manner regarding divorce and they are being forced

to live in a household where the in-laws don’t want to keep

them and their father is forcing them to stay. But the present

petitioners are distant relatives and do not live in the same

house as the deceased women and children as per what has

been revealed till now. The allegations levelled against them

are omnibus in nature and at this juncture, there does not

seem a justifiable reason to continue their incarceration until

the trial is culminated.

7. After pondering over the legal provisions made in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the law enunciated by Hon’ble the

Supreme Court through plethora of judicial pronouncements

and upon deliberation of bail jurisprudence, it is understood

that the only thing which a court of law is to ascertain while

entertaining a bail plea is whether the accused should be

allowed to come to the court to attend the judicial proceeding

from his home and he may be allowed to remain with his

(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:04:55 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:11937] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-1987/2024]

family and within the society on the specific condition that on

the stipulated date of the hearing of the case, he will willfully

attend the court proceeding or he is such a person that even

in the pending trial, he should be detained, should not be

allowed to visit his family and should be lodged at a specified

place of detention so that on the day of hearing, he may be

brought to the court from the jail. In other words, it is to be

decided whether he may be allowed to eat, sleep and live

with his family like a man ordinarily does or he may be

allowed to eat, sleep and live in the jail. It all boils down to

this that whether the Court wishes to allow the accused to

come to the court to attend the proceedings from his home

upon furnishing his bonds and surety of independent

person(s)s or the court thinks that he cannot be allowed to

roam free and therefore, he should be detained so that he

may be brought before the court on the day fixed for the

hearing. This Court is of the considered view that this is the

only thing which is to be thought over and to be ascertained

while entertaining a bail plea. It is a judicially noticeable fact

in the present era that due to high volume of pending cases,

culmination of trial takes considerable time and in my view,

keeping the accused behind the bars during the pendency of

the case would serve no purpose except in exceptional

circumstances. 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 petitioners in the present matter. Needless to say,

(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:04:55 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:11937] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-1987/2024]

none of the observations made herein under shall affect the

rights of either of the parties during trial and this Court

refrains from commenting on the niceties of the matter.

8. Accordingly, the instant bail applications under Section 439

Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-

petitioners as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on

bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the

sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to

them to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their

appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of

hearing as and when called upon to do so.

(FARJAND ALI),J
57-/-

(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:04:55 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)