1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 6036/2009 Smt. Narendra Kaur vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 06/08/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Sandeep Pathak, for the petitioner. Mr. K.K. Chhawal on behalf of Mr. S.R. Surana, for the complainant. Mr. Amit Poonia, PP for the State. REPORTABLE This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate on behalf of the applicant Smt. Narendra Kaur pertaining to Criminal Case No. 166/2008 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in the offence under Section 306 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that marriage of Simran, the daughter of the petitioner was solemnized with Satnam, the son the deceased, Malkit Singh on 11.04.2004. Only after a period of two months of marriage, Simran died on 13.06.2004 as a result of which a case of dowry death was lodged with the police wherein four accused persons of the complainant family were arrested on 22.10.2004. Thereafter on 14.11.2004 Malkit Singh committed suicide. After three months of death of Malkit Singh, a private complaint came to be filed in the offence under Section 306 of IPC in the 2 Court below and having recorded the statements of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur did not find any cogent evidence against the petitioner and therefore refused to take cognizance for the alleged offence under Section 306 of IPC and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved with this order, a revision petition was filed by the complainant before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which came to be accepted and the matter was remanded back to the concerned Court for taking cognizance and to proceed against the petitioner's party for the alleged offence. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that with a view to wreak vengeance, after the death of Malkit Singh, the complainant filed a false complaint in the offence under Section 306, IPC against the petitioner's party. From any stretch of imagination, the facts as emerged on the record do not constitute any offence under Section 306 of IPC. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, whereas she is totally innocent, hence, she may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail petition on the ground that bail petition filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C. on behalf of Jitendra Kaur and Hardev has already been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that arrest of the petitioner was required to be made in this case and if the petitioners were bailed out, the petitioner would not be arrested. Hence in view of these facts, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on anticipatory bail. 3 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material available on record, I without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, do feel that it is a fit case wherein, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 6. Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Smt. Narendra Kaur W/o Darshan Singh in Criminal Case No. 166/2008 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in the offence under Section 306 of IPC, he shall enlarge her on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur on the following conditions:- (i) She shall make herself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required: (ii)She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; (iii)She shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (iv)She will not commit any offence during the period of bail. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. DJ/- S-25