State Of Rajasthan, Through PP v. For

: Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Adv. Assit by Mr. Tara Chand Sharma Ms. Jaya Mitra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR 04/02/2025 Order The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 417/2023 registered at Police Station Murlipura, District Jaipur (West) for the offence(s) under Sections 304-B and 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The accused petitioner is in custody since 13.08.2023. It is further contended that marriage of the petitioner and deceased was solemnized on

21.05.2023 and deceased committed suicide by hanging on

10.08.2023. It is further argued that initially in the FIR, it is stated that petitioner’s brother and her wife were harassing the deceased (2 of 5) [CRLMB-4458/2024] for demand of dowry, the police did not find the involvement of petitioner's brother and his wife. It is also contended that in the FIR, it is narrated that petitioner has caused murder of the deceased whereas after investigation police has charge-sheeted the accused petitioner under Section 304-B of IPC. It is argued that as per PMR also, apart from the ligature mark, no external or internal injuries were found on the body parts of the deceased, therefore, the narration in the FIR that petitioner caused murder of the deceased is wrong. It is also contended that the FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased and during investigation deceased’s mother and father were not examined by the investigating ofÏcer. It is also admitted by the deceased’s brother in his cross examination that his mother was not examined as she was mentally sick. It is argued that in the statement of PW-1 Sunil Ray the allegations regarding demand of dowry soon before the death are not specific. In the FIR as well as in the statement rendered under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-1 Sunil Ray has not mentioned any specific date regarding demand of dowry, similarly in his examination-in-chief he has stated that he had a talk with the petitioner, 7-8 days before the death of the deceased and petitioner demanded dowry. PW-1 has not mentioned these facts in his statement rendered before the investigating ofÏcer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also does not find place in the FIR. It is also contended that police has not collected any call details, allegedly transpired between PW-1 Sunil Ray and petitioner. It is also vehementally argued that PW-1 in his cross examination has further improved his version and attempted to show that some amount was transferred in the account of petitioner before (3 of 5) [CRLMB-4458/2024] solemnizing the marriage with the deceased. PW-1 was given ample opportunity by the trial court to place on record documents regarding said transaction. PW-1 Sunil Ray further improved his version in cross-examination as he could not place on record the specific statement showing transaction of money from his account to petitioner’s account and developed story that some Prashant Kumar transferred the amount in the account of petitioner, that fact also neither find place in the FIR nor in the statement rendered under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and during investigating also no such documents were furnished by the complainant, nor made part of the charge-sheet. It is further contended that admittedly at the time of death of the deceased the petitioner was not at his residence. The deceased was mentally ill when she committed suicide and this fact has been admitted by the prosecution witness PW-3 Sumer Singh and his wife PW-5 Dholi Gurjar, in their cross examination also they have not supported the prosecution story that petitioner use to harass the deceased, soon before her death for demand of dowry. Apart from PW-1 Sunil Ray there are no other corroborative evidence available regarding demand of dowry. All the material witnesses have already been examined only few formal witnesses and investigating ofÏcer are yet to be examined and further trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore considering the statements of witnesses and long incarceration of the petitioner, bail application of petitioner may be allowed. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. It is contended that deceased committed suicide within three months of solemnization of marriage with the petitioner. PW-1 Sunil Ray has corroborated the version that soon (4 of 5) [CRLMB-4458/2024] before the death deceased was harassed and there was demand of dowry. As per the provision of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, burden lies upon the petitioner to explain the cause of death and other circumstances and petitioner has failed to establish the fact that deceased was suffering from any mental ailment, long incarceration itself cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail, punishment provided under Section 304 is upto life imprisonment and the offence committed is of grave nature, therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. Heard and perused the material available on the record. It is not apposite for the court to observe anything on the merits of the case, sufÏce to say that some facts which are deposed in the cross-examination of PW-1 Sunil Ray is missing in the FIR as well as in the statement rendered under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Petitioner has remained in custody since 13.08.2023 and further trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Dhooman Kumar Ray S/o Late Shri Godi Ray, in connection with FIR No. 417/2023 registered at Police Station Murlipura, District Jaipur (West)shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his (5 of 5) [CRLMB-4458/2024] appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. ashu /81 (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J