HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 10245/2022

Virender @ Viru S/o Nahar Singh, R/o Village Babarpur,

Presently Reside At Ward No.23, Kasba Rajakheda, P.s.

Rajakheda, District Dholpur (Raj.). (At Present Accused Confined

In District Jail, Dholpur)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Pankaj Gupta

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP.

Mr. Sunil Tyagi, Mr. Anirudh Tyagi,

Mr. Budhhi Prakash Meena

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

12/12/2022

1.

The 2^nd bail application has been filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR

No.37/2021 Registered at Police Station Rajakhera, District

Dholpur for the offence(s) under Sections 498A, 304B & 201 IPC.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been wrongly implicated in this case. Petitioner is behind the

bars since 01.03.2021. Chargesheet has been filed against the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1^st

bail application filed by the petitioner was withdrawn with liberty

to file fresh bail application after recording the statement of

witnesses Meghsingh, Vijay and Omwati. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that these witnesses were recorded by the trial

(2 of 2)

[CRLMB-10245/2022]

court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no

evidence that petitioner had harassed the deceased for want of

dowry. Conclusion of trial may take long time. So, the petitioner

be enlarged on bail.

3.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had

harassed the deceased for want of dowry and also cremated last

rites without conducting post-martem. So, looking to the gravity

of the offence, the 2^nd bail be dismissed.

4.

Learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance

upon the judgment in the case of Satbir Singh & Anr. Vs. State

of Haryana; Criminal Appeal Nos.1735-36 of 2010.

5.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and

learned counsel for the complainant.

6.

Petitioner and deceased were married on 11.12.2020. After

that, as per complaint, petitioner and his family members tortured

her for want of dowry and she had committed suicide. After that,

petitioner and his family members had cremated last rites without

conducting the post-martem. They had destroyed the evidence of

her death. So, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the

petitioner on bail.

7.

Accordingly, the 2^nd bail application under Section 439

Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Seema/59