The High Court · 2012

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sanjay Sharma for the petitioner. Shri Amit Poonia, P.P. for the State. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that allegation against the petitioner and the other co- accused Mukesh was that they demanded dowry for the marriage of co-accused Mukesh with deceased Santosh. The marriage was scheduled to take place on 30.4.2012, but on this demand the marriage was postponed and in the alternative another demand was alleged to be made by the accused party that if the complainant is unable to meet the demand of dowry, they should marry both their daughters to sons of the accused-petitioner. Co-accused Mukesh with whom the deceased was engaged to be married has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.8.2012. Yogesh, his younger brother and Smt. Naurati Devi, his mother have also been enlarged on bail by this Court. Petitioner happens to be father of co-accused Mukesh. He is in jail for quite some time. Challan has been filed. Trial may take long. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case but taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 2 In the result, this bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Kishan Lal Brahmbhatt S/o Shri Banna Lal shall be released on bail in F.I.R. No.174/2012, P.S. Kanota, Distt. Jaipur for offence u/s.306 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till conclusion of the trial. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/65 All corrections made in the judgement/order have been incorporated in the judgement/order being emailed. (Ravi Sharma,P.A.)