1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Madhav Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B.CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.803/2008 DATE OF ORDER :: February 28, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Sandeep Mehta, for the petitioners. Mr. L.R.Upadhyay, P.P. for the State. BY THE COURT: By the instant criminal misc. bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek anticipatory bail in FIR No.06/2008, Mahila Police Station, Udaipur for the offences under sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Carefully gone through the order impugned dt. 16.2.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur dismissing the bail application filed by the petitioners under section 438 Cr.P.C. I have also gone through the police 2 investigation diary made available by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that husband of the first informant committed suicide and, therefore, proceeding under section 174 Cr.P.C. was initiated. However, subsequently, a report for the offence under section 306 I.P.C. has been lodged against the first informant. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and contended that the petitioners harassed and subjected the first informant to cruelty and failed to return her dowry articles i.e. her “Stridhan” even on demand and, therefore, prima facie there is an evidence so far collected by the police on the police investigation diary that the petitioners committed the offences noticed above and the dowry articles, which are “Stridhan” of the first informant, are yet to be recovered during the investigation and if the benefit of section 438 Cr.P.C. is extended to the petitioners, it will hamper the investigation. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. First informant Smt. Basanti wife of late Niranjan Singh 3 filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur stating therein that she married to Niranjan Singh on 2.2.2003 and from the loin of Niranjan Singh, she gave a birth of a male child viz. Jeet Singh alias Raja, who is aged about two and a half years now. However, her husband committed suicide on 22.10.2007 and left a suicide note, wherein no one has been implicated. However, after the death of her husband, she has been turned out from her matrimonial home; she was subjected to cruelty and harassment; her minor son Jeet Singh alias Raja aged two and a half years has been snatched away by the petitioners from her and failed to return the dowry articles; she being a widow, has been rendered helpless in the hands of the petitioners. She demanded her “Stridhan” even by a written notice dt. 23.11.2007, which the petitioners failed to return and committed breach of trust and misappropriated her “Stridhan”. She has given the details of “Stridhan” in the complaint, which was entrusted to the petitioners. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur sent the complaint to the Mahila Police Station, Udaipur for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police ensued the investigation, the investigation is in progress. Certain copies of the bills by which the jewellery was purchased, which the first informant claims to be of her “Stridhan”, has been placed on police investigation diary. 4 On careful scrutiny of the police investigation diary, more particularly the statements of first informant Basanti, Dilwan Singh, Arjun Lal Mali, Rajesh s/o Bhanwar Lal, Smt. Guddi w/o Gita Ram etc., in my view, there is prima facie strong evidence connecting the petitioners with the commission of alleged crime. and the fact that the minor son of the first informant aged two and a half years has been snatched away by the petitioners and still he is in custody of the petitioners and there is evidence of entrustment of the dowry articles i.e. “Stridhan” to the petitioners and the petitioners having failed to return even on demand by notice and, therefore, there is prima facie evidence of misappropriation of “Stridhan” of the first informant. The suicide note written by the deceased is on record, wherein he has not implicated either the first informant or anyone for committing the suicide. On the contrary, in the suicide note, it has been stated that the first informant is to look after and well-being his son Raja aged two and a half years. Keeping in view the evidence available on record, in my view, in such matters, custodial interrogation is necessary more particularly with regard to the recovery of the dowry articles and also of well-being of minor Raja aged two and a half years and, therefore, I find no good ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners under section 438 Cr.P.C. 5 The bail application filed by the petitioners under section 438 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, dismissed. [H.R.PANWAR],J. m.asif/-