IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
Bhawani Singh @ Pinnu Kachawa - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2294 of 2023
Decided on : 28-04-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application for offenses under ipc (Para 1) |
| 2. court's consideration of arguments presented (Para 2 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding false implication and marriage context (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. opinion on mens rea and bail rationale (Para 8) |
| 5. order granting bail (Para 9) |
ORDER :
Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, J. - This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.59/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Nagaur, for offences under Sections 354 , 376, 384 and 306 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per prosecution, the petitioner harassed, humiliated, black-mailed the deceased who on being irritated, frustrated and insulted by the acts and actions of the present petitioner, committed suicide by consuming pesticides.
4. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, petitioner and deceased solemnized marriage as per Hindu rites and rituals on 29.06.2022. However, the family members of the deceased were unhappy with the marriage and they did not allow them to live together. Learned counsel submitted that looking to the hostile behavior of the family members of the deceased, they filed an application in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur seeking police protection whereupon the family members of the deceased were advised by the police not to interfere in the personal affairs of the petitioner and the deceased.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that from the perusal of the case file, it is evident that petitioner neither abetted nor instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel submitted that there is neither direct nor any indirect evidence available on record indicating that the petitioner generated any situation which forced the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; challan has already been filed and trial of the case may take sufficiently long time to conclude, therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application however, he was unable to establish that petitioner instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
7. Heard.
8. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is prima facie, of the opinion that there is nothing on record which shows mens rea on part of the petitioner to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The petitioner is in judicial custody and also looking to the possibility that the trial may take long time to conclude, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
9. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Bhawani Singh @ Pinnu Kachawa S/o Nemichand shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.59/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Nagaur, 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 appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
The court ruled that lack of evidence for intent to instigate suicide justifies granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The absence of direct evidence of instigation and significant delay in filing the FIR justified granting bail to the petitioner.
The absence of mens rea or intention to instigate suicide under Section 306 IPC justifies the grant of bail.
The court found no direct evidence of intention to instigate suicide, allowing bail as essential ingredients of abetment were absent.
The court emphasized that serious allegations of dowry death and harassment justify the denial of bail, highlighting the need for careful consideration of the gravity of charges.
The court granted bail based on the lack of support from key prosecution witnesses, indicating a weak case against the petitioner.
The court ruled that without substantial evidence proving unnatural death or suicide, the applicant is entitled to bail, emphasizing the necessity of clear proof for conviction under IPC sections.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.