Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Manmohan @ Ashok S/O Shri Manohar Lal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 July, 2021
Author: Devendra Kachhawaha
Bench: Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
...
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 609/2021
1. Manmohan @ Ashok S/o Shri Manohar Lal Sharma, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Mirzapur, Police Station
Malakheda,district Alwar, (Raj.).
(At Present Confined In Central Jail Alwar, District Alwar)
2. Sandeep @ Moti S/o Shri Roshanlal Sharma, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Pehal Police Station Mundawar, Presently
Thakar Wala Kuan, Ramnagar Colony, Ward No. 42, Police
Station N.E.B. District Alwar (Raj.).
(At Present Confined In Central Jail Alwar, District Alwar)
3. Ashok @ Kalu S/o Shri Roshanlal Sharma, R/o Pehal
Police Station Mundawar, Presently Thakar Wala Kuan,
Ramnagar Colony, Ward No. 42, Police Station N.e.b.
District Alwar (Raj.)
(At Present Confined In Central Jail Alwar, District Alwar)
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor
2. Ramadhar Ram S/o Sarju Ram, R/o Dda Lig Flat No. 1182, New Kondli, New Ashok Nagar, East Delhi
----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bheem Sain Bairwa For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Ola, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 15/07/2021 The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants, who are in judicial custody in connection with FIR No.09/2021, Police Station Malakheda, District Alwar, registered (Downloaded on 16/07/2021 at 09:59:25 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLAS-609/2021] for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Alwar (Raj.) whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellants was rejected.
Learned Public Prosecutor stated that despite service nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the appellants stated that appellants were not present at the place of occurrence; As per the statement of witnesses, namely, Ramvijay and Somnath, deceased (Smt.Deepali) and her husband - Mahesh were resided separately in a rented house; appellant No.1 is brother-in-law (Nandoi) of deceased whereas, appellant Nos.2 and 3 are brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased; there is no allegation of harassment by the accused-appellants soon before the death; no offence for demand of dowry is made out against the accused-appellants; an affidavit has been submitted by Mrs. Radhika, cousin of deceased and wife of appellant No.2, in which she has stated that marriage of deceased and Mahesh is love marriage, no dowry item was given at the time of marriage and even expenses of marriage were borne by Mahesh himself. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prayed that benefit of bail may be granted to the appellants by allowing the present appeal.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal preferred on behalf of the appellants and prayer seeking release (Downloaded on 16/07/2021 at 09:59:25 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLAS-609/2021] on bail and stated that witnesses Ramvijay and Somnath stated that relations between the deceased and her husband were not good; they used to quarrel; death had taken place within two years and one month of the marriage; funeral of the deceased was done before reaching of the parents of deceased at the place of incident, which creates doubt; Somnath, landlord of the house, supported the factum of demand of dowry. Somnath clearly stated that the deceased was harassed by all the accused-appellants for demand of dowry. He stated that accused-appellants often came and harassed the deceased for demand of dowry. Ramvijay is also one of the tenants of that building. Public Prosecutor further stated that affidavit of wife of appellant No.2 cannot be considered at this stage, as she is neither complainant nor offences are compoundable.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for grant of bail to the appellants before recording the statements of relevant witnesses, namely, Somnath and Ramvijay.
Accordingly and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant appeal preferred on behalf of the appellants under Section 14(A)(2) is rejected.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Trial Court is directed to record the statement of Somnath Singh and Ramvijay, as a first and second witness respectively, as early as possible.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J ASHISH BHARDWAJ/24 (Downloaded on 16/07/2021 at 09:59:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)