—
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)