SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ranjeet vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 August, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 6809/2018

Ranjeet S/o Shri Pema, by caste-Banjara aged about 25 Years,
Fala Manderi, Police Station Dhambola, District Dungarpur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan , Through PP
—-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Uppadhaya, Public
Prosecutor

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR

Order

10/08/2018

The present anticipatory bail application under Section

438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed in connection with FIR No.03/2018

Police Station Dhambola, District- Dungarpur for the offence

under Sections 498A, 304B IPC registered against applicant.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Amar Singh

son of Parthi Banjara, resident of Samgadha lodged a report at

police Station Dhambola against the petitioner and others, stating

inter alia, that his daughter was married with the petitioner on

07.05.2011 as per social rites and rituals at Samgadha. The

accused persons used to harass and tease his daughter and were

demanding dowry. Two years back his daughter was turned out

from the house and a sum of Rs.50,000/- were demanded for

going to Kuwait. Therefore, Rs.50,000/- were given in presence of

Pratap and Ishwar so that the house of his daughter may not

break down. On the day of Deepawali the petitioner and his
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-6809/2018]

daughter came to his house and accused Ranjeet demanded

Rs.2,00,000/- for constructing house. When his daughter resisted,

the accused became angry and threatened to oust her from house

and to kill her. Two days before the the date of incident i.e.

04.11.2017 her daughter Rajni informed on telephone about

quarrel on demand of Rs.2 lacs. After murdering her daughter, the

accused took her to Meghraj and Modasa hospital, but he and his

family members were not informed.

It was contended that the petitioner is an innocent person

and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and in the

police investigation it has come that the deceased had love affairs

with one Vishan. During investigation the police recorded the

statements of Vishan in which he has admitted that he used to

talk to lthe deceased on mobile. When the petitioner came to

know this fact, the deceased attempted to suicide.

It was also submitted that the deceased was not happy with

her marriage with the petitioner, because earlier the engagement

of the elder sister of the deceased took place with the petitioner.

However, two days before her marriage she ran away. Thereafter

the father of the deceased solemnized marriage of the deceased

with the petitioner. The petitioner came from Kuwait 8 days before

the date of incident and was living happily with his wife.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned

Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

Having considered all the relevant facts and circumstances of

the case, this Court deems it just and proper to grant anticipatory

bail to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-6809/2018]

Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed

that in the even of arrest of applicant in connection with FIR

No.03/2018 Police Station Dhambola, District- Dungarpur, the

accused-applicant- Ranjeet S/o Shri Pema shall be released on

bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of

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

satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO on the

following conditions:-

(1) He shall make himself available for interrogation by
Investigating Officer as and when required;

(2) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any Police Officer;

(3) He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the

trial court.

(VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J.

Ravi Kh./106

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh