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
