Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahaveer Singh S/O Man Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 October, 2021
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 17283/2021
Mahaveer Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Village Ramgarh Pachwara,
Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, Distt. Dausa (Raj.) (At Present
Petitioner Is Confined In Distt. Jail Dausa.)
----Accused/Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R. Meena, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
28/10/2021
The present third bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.170/2020 registered at Police Station Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa for the offence under Section(s) 498-A & 304-B IPC and later on for the offence under Section(s) 304-B & 406 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution witness Vikram Singh (PW-14), who happens to be uncle of the deceased and the mediator to the marriage, has stated that no complaint was ever made to him by the parents of the deceased with regard to subjecting the deceased, wife of the petitioner, to harassment or torture with regard to demand of dowry. He submitted that allegation levelled against him of receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash a day before the date of incident, does (Downloaded on 28/10/2021 at 11:01:39 PM) (2 of 5) [CRLMB-17283/2021] not figure in the FIR. Learned counsel submitted that financial condition of the deceased's father is not sound that he could pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as alleged. Learned counsel submitted that the Investigating Agency after thorough investigation reached at conclusion that there was no demand of dowry still, charge sheet was filed under Sections 406 and 304-B IPC. He submitted that the petitioner is in custody for last about fourteen months and prayed for his release on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this third bail application.
The first bail application of the petitioner, filed after submission of the charge sheet, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.01.2021 in following terms:
"After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this bail application at this stage.
The bail application is dismissed as withdrawn."
The second bail application preferred by the petitioner after recording statement of father (PW-1) and mother (PW-2) of the deceased, was dismissed by this Court taking into consideration that both these witnesses have levelled specific allegation against him of subjecting the deceased to harassment with regard to demand of dowry. It was also observed therein that the petitioner was facing trial under Sections 304-B and 406 IPC and in the alternate, under Sections 302 & 406 IPC. Thereafter, statements of 12 more prosecution witnesses have been recorded. More prosecution witnesses such as Himmat Singh (PW-8) and Sonu Singh (PW-13) have levelled specific allegation against the petitioner of subjecting the deceased to harassment and torture with regard to demand of dowry. The material on record reveals (Downloaded on 28/10/2021 at 11:01:39 PM) (3 of 5) [CRLMB-17283/2021] that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 09.02.2020 and petitioner's wife suffered unnatural death on 25.06.2020 i.e. within 5 months of her marriage. There is sufficient material on record to show prima facie that she was subjected to harassment and torture with regard to demand of dowry soon before her death. It is well established principle of law that marshalling of evidence is impermissible at the stage of consideration of bail application which is to be done by the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage. It is also settled that although, the principle of res judicata is not applicable in bail matters with full rigour but, for renewal of prayer for bail, there has to be some substantial change in circumstance in favour of the accused. Merely because one of the prosecution witnesses, who happen to be the mediator, has stated that no complaint was ever made to him, would not entitle the petitioner, who is facing trial as aforesaid under Section(s) 304-B/406 IPC and in the alternate under Section(s) 302/406 IPC, for bail.
A three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in the case of Mamta Nair Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2021) 7 SCC 442 while allowing the appeal preferred by the complainant/victim and setting aside the benefit of bail extended by this Court to the accused-respondent therein, held as under:
"6. The documents already taken note of by this Court indicates that there is prima facie material against Respondent 2. Though the appellant herein i.e. the wife of the deceased has been examined and a contention has been put forth with regard to her statement, it is not the evidence in its entirety and it is premature to conclude on the basis of a stray sentence. Further, merely classifying the appellant as the principal star witness and referring to her (Downloaded on 28/10/2021 at 11:01:39 PM) (4 of 5) [CRLMB-17283/2021] statement is of no consequence since the entire evidence will have to be assessed by the Sessions Court before arriving at a conclusion. If that be the position when this Court at an earlier instance had taken note of all aspects and had arrived at the conclusion that there is prima facie material against Respondent 2, the mere examination of the appellant herein cannot be considered as a change in circumstance for the High Court to consider the fourth bail application of Respondent 2 and enlarge him on bail."
In Rakesh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2021) Volume 7 SCC 188, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while hearing a criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction held that entire evidence of the prosecution is to be read as a whole with other evidence on record and stray statement/mere one sentence here and there cannot be considered stand alone.
The aforesaid observation was made in an appeal against the judgment of conviction whereas, this Court is considering a bail application wherein trial is still pending.
In view of the gravity of allegation against the petitioner as also in view of hampering of trial in the wake of Covid-19, no exception can be taken of his incarceration for a period of fourteen months. The record reveals that statement of fourteen prosecution witnesses have already been recorded and hence, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail on this account also.
The offshoot of the aforesaid discussion is that the petitioner is not entitled for benefit of bail. The third bail application is dismissed accordingly.
However, it goes without saying that observations made hereinabove are for the purpose of deciding the bail application (Downloaded on 28/10/2021 at 11:01:39 PM) (5 of 5) [CRLMB-17283/2021] only and shall not prejudice merit of the case pending consideration before the learned trial Court.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DANISH USMANI /07 (Downloaded on 28/10/2021 at 11:01:39 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)