HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 8356 / 2017
Narpat Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident of
Shekhasar, Presently Nehru Colony, Bap, P.S. Bap, District
Jodhpur. (In Judicial Custody At Sub Jail, Phalodi, District Jodhpur)
The State of Rajasthan
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, Public Prosecutor.
For Complainant(s): Mr. R.S. Chouhan.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
The petitioner, father-in-law of deceased Bhanwar Kanwar,
who died within a short span of her marriage, has laid this post-
arrest second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., arising
out of CR Case No.92/2016 of Police Station Baap, District Jodhpur
under Section 439 Cr.P.C. In the FIR, besides petitioner, two
other accused persons are castigated for offence punishable under
Section 498A, 304B, 201 IPC.
Police after investigation has submitted chargesheet in the
matter against him and two other persons viz., Chhelu Singh alias
Chailendra Singh – son of present petitioner and Smt. Baby
Kanwar – wife of petitioner.
(2 of 4)
The first bail application of the petitioner bearing
No.11485/16 was dismissed as not pressed on 15 th of December
Mr. J.S. Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel, submits that
allegations of subjecting deceased to cruelty or harassment in
connection with any demand for dowry in the FIR and police
statements of complainant Bhawani Singh are omnibus. Learned
Senior Counsel would, therefore, contend that basic ingredient for
constituting offence of “dowry death” within the meaning of
Section 304-B IPC is conspicuously missing in the matter. Learned
counsel has urged that the complainant has improved his version
in the police statement from the one recited in FIR. Learned
counsel has further submitted that mother in law of deceased
Baby Kanwar has already been granted bail in the matter.
Learned counsel argued that demand of car or dowry soon before
death is missing in the matter and the allegations levelled in this
connection are onmibus. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted
that no injury was found on the body of deceased and the FSL
report of viscera also gave negative test for metallic poisons,
ethyle and methyle alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates,
tranquillizers and insecticides. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel
would contend that after rejection of first bail application there is
substantial change in the circumstances.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that death of
Bhanwar Kanwar was within thirteen months of marriage and
offence under Section 304-B IPC is prima facie made out against
(3 of 4)
the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that allegations
of cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry are very much
discernible from FIR as well as the statements of witnesses
recorded by police and therefore offence under Section 304-B IPC
is clearly made out against the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Chouhan, learned counsel appearing for the
complainant, has reiterated the arguments advanced by learned
Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel has urged that prima facie
offence of demand for dowry immediately before death is available
so as to constitute offence under Section 304-B IPC. Learned
counsel submitted that looking to the short duration of matrimony,
i.e. 13 months, and unnatural death of deceased with requisite
evidence of dowry demand, presumption under Section 113-B of
the Indian Evidence Act 1872 attracted in the matter.
I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments
advanced at the Bar and perused the materials available on
Unnatural death of a lady during subsistence of matrimony
in tiny span of 13 months coupled with allegations of cruelty or
harassment with demand of dowry cannot be underplayed at this
stage while considering bail plea of the petitioner. The statement
of uncle of deceased Narpat Singh s/o Dhan Singh cannot be
ignored wherein she soon before her death she showed fear of her
killing on account of not giving dowry in the marriage, which is
corroborated by the statement of complainant. Otherwise also, at
the stage of considering bail application, Court is not expected to
scrutinize evidence so minutely with precision.
(4 of 4)
In view of foregoing discussion, while refraining to make any
comment on merits, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of
the case, I feel disinclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Resultantly, bail application fails and same is hereby