IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.5439/2010 Deepak Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : 07/07/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar] for accused petitioner with } Mr. Anil Kumar } Mr. G.S.Rathore, Public Prosecutor for the State Mr. Dharamveer Tholia for the complainant ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that the petitioner was arrested on 24.4.2010 on the allegation of committing offence under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. Originally, the FIR, delayed by four days, was registered for offence under Section 304-B IPC, but the police after conclusion of the investigation has filed charge sheet only for offence under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that from the conclusion submitted by the Investigating Officer it is clearly seen from the evidence collected during investigation that deceased Lalita was not happy with her marriage with the accused petitioner and once the deceased had left the house of her husband, leaving her two months old child. Referring from the charge sheet and supporting documents, learned counsel submitted that even after the marriage, deceased Lalita used to exchange SMS with Ravi Kant Meena and Manjeet @ Mukesh Kuri. Last call was made by deceased Lalita at 12.01 PM to Mobile Phone bearing No. 9983366566 which was in the name of Mr. Ravi Kant Meena. According to learned counsel, deceased had sent 66 SMS to him and talked to him five times during the period from 29.3.2010 to 5.4.2010. On 5th April, 2010 at 12.01 PM Lalita told Ravi Kant that she wanted to see him last time ; she would be standing in the Balcony of her house and that he should walk away in-front of her house. This fact is fortified from the statement of Mr. Meena recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 5th April, 2010 at 11.55 AM she made a call to Mobile Phone, bearing No. 9460649230. On 3.4.2010 she had talked to some one on the same mobile number continuously for three hours i.e. from 11.28 PM to 2.30 AM. When the call details were collected, the above number was found to be in the name of one Abhay Jain. On further investigation, it transpired that Manjeet @ Mukesh R/O Jat Colony, Sikar used to talk to deceased using mobile bearing No. 9460649230. Police has also recorded the statement of Manjeet @ Mukesh who is native of Sikar with whom deceased had been having relations as he was her neighbor at Sikar. Allegation of raising demand for dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry soon before death have not been believed by the police during investigation and that being so, it has not filed charge sheet under Section 304-B IPC. It has been argued that nothing could be found during investigation so as to make out a case of raising demand of dowry or subjecting the deceased to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry either against the petitioner or any member of his family. Unfortunate incident in which deceased committed suicide, took place on 5th April, 2010. Panchnama of the dead body was prepared on 6th April, 2010 in the presence of grand father of the deceased. In fact a written report of the incident was given by the father of the present accused petitioner to the S.H.O., Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur on the very same day of the incident at 12.15 PM and that report was also signed by the grand father of the deceased, who was immediately called by the petitioner. Lastly, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that deceased Lalita was not happy about her marriage with the petitioner and held him in poor estimate and out of frustration, she committed suicide. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The learned counsel for the complainant strongly opposed the bail application, submitting that the nature of injuries found on the person of deceased do not indicate it to be a case of suicide. So far as delay is concerned, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the father of the deceased was staying at a distant place. He could reach late on 7 th April, 2010 and thereafter first priority was to perform the funeral Considering the rival submissions and without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case but taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and appropriate to enlarge the petitioners on bail during trial. Resultantly, the bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Deepak Chaudhary S/O Shri Arjun Chaudhary shall be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 168/2010, Police Station, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance in that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so during trial. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. thanvi