SB Crlmb No.5914/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.5914/2010. Smt.Savita Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : July 6, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Biri Singh for petitioner. Shri Amit Poonia, Public Prosecutor for State. ****** Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me. Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner, who is mother-in- law of deceased has been falsely implicated in the case for offence u/Ss.498A, 406 and 304B IPC whereas, fact was that deceased Kavita herself was a woman of quarrelsome nature and ever since she married to Rakesh, son of the petitioner, she was not happy in the family. Learned counsel referred to various statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. including those of Girdharam, Savitri Devi, Sardar Singh, Raghuveer and Balveer who are neighbours of their agricultural field and they clearly stated that they were witness to the altercation which took place between deceased Kavita and her husband Rakesh. Deceased Kavita was heard saying that she was not at all SB Crlmb No.5914/10. 2 prepared to work at the agricultural field and she demanded keys of the house from Rakesh so that she can go home. Rakesh thereupon insisted that she should work in the agriculture field with him and on this, dispute further aggravated and ultimately, Kavita took the extreme step of jumping into the 90 feet deep Well. On hearing hue and cry of Rakesh, those neighbours with Rakesh immediately rushed to the Well and Kavita was taken out and immediately rushed to the hospital. Learned counsel submitted that in the statement of Smt.Krishna Devi and other statements of Ramrati, Savitri Devi, Santosh Devi and Sita Devi, there are general allegations of demand of dowry but specific allegation of demand of dowry has been made only against Rakesh. It has also come in the evidence of all those witnesses that after marriage of the younger son of the petitioner, Kaptan Singh, husband of the deceased Rakesh were separated from the family and they started living independently. It is a case of false implication in that not only the mother and father of deceased's husband were named in the FIR but the brother-in-law Kaptan Singh, his wife Poonam, sister-in-law Babli and another brother-in-law Sunil were also named as accused with the general allegations. Ultimately, police filed challan against the mother-in-law, father-in-law and the husband. Petitioner, who is aged person even otherwise is entitled to be released on bail in SB Crlmb No.5914/10. 3 view of special provisions u/S.437 Cr.P.C. especially when, she is a woman responsible for taking care of three years old daughter of the deceased herself. Petitioner is in jail since 18/4/2010. Challan has been filed. Trial is likely to take a long. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Considering the submissions made at the bar, the nature of accusation, the materials on record and all other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. In the result, this bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Smt.Savita W/o Phool Singh shall be released on bail in FIR No.98/2010 P.S. Bansur, District Alwar for offence u/Ss.498A, 406 and 304B IPC on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for her appearance before that court on all dates of hearing until conclusion of the trial. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil