Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Harish Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 June, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:26720]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 661/2025
Harish Kumar S/o Shri Bhikamchand, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Pipar City Dist Jodhpur (Raj)
(Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Harish Chandra S/o Lal Chand, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
67-B, Paota 'C' Road, Laxmi Nagar Mahamandir, Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr.Advocate
Ms. Priyanka Borana
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. Om Choudhary, AGA
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Hastimal Saraswat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
03/06/2025
This third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483
BNS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.28/2022, registered at Police Station
Mahila Thana, Jodhpur Rural, for offence under Sections 498A,
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
prosecution, the deceased – Minakshi, who solemnized marriage
with the petitioner on 11.11.2009, was continuously harassed by
her in-laws and present petitioner for demand of dowry and was
also subjected to mental and physical cruelty in her matrimonial
home.
(Downloaded on 03/06/2025 at 09:43:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26720] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-661/2025]
As per prosecution, on the date of alleged incident, the
deceased was forcibly administered poison by the present
petitioner and his family members. Thereafter, the deceased was
admitted at hospital in serious condition where she died while
undergoing treatment.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has falsely
been implicated in the present case. The marriage of the
petitioner with the deceased – Minakshi was solemnized on
11.12.2009 and two children namely Jhalak @ Pari and Jagriti
were born out of the wedlock. Learned counsel submitted that the
allegation of dowry demand levelled against the petitioner is
totally false and baseless. As a matter of fact, the deceased
committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance when her
illicit relationship with one Chatarbhuj came on surface. The
suicide note recovered by the investigating agency indicates that
she ended her life out her own free will.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial
custody since 8.12.2022. The statements of material prosecution
witnesses including the investigating officer have already been
recorded before the competent criminal court which would indicate
that the FIR is an exaggerated version put-forth by the
complainant. The children of the deceased viz. P.W.1 and P.W.2
during their court statements have not disclosed any fact
indicating that their mother was mistreated or misbehaved with by
the petitioner or his family members.
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in judicial custody; the trial against the petitioner is
(Downloaded on 03/06/2025 at 09:43:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26720] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-661/2025]
not likely to be concluded in near future and therefore, no fruitful
purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars
for an indefinite period. On these grounds, learned counsel
implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that sufficient
material is available on record to indicate that the deceased was
being continuously subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the
petitioner and his family on account of dowry demand. He
submitted that during post-mortem of the deceased, number of
injuries were found on her body prima facie strengthening the
allegation that she was being forced to consume the poison.
Learned counsel submitted that the investigating agency, after
completing investigation in the matter, has filed a charge-sheet
against the petitioner for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
Drawing attention of the Court towards challan papers,
learned counsel for the complainant submitted that despite the
petitioner and his family members having ample time and
opportunity to provide the deceased proper and necessary
treatment by taking her to a Government Hospital, Jodhpur, they
did not do so and admitted her at a Government Hospital, Pipar
City where her health deteriorated and she died while undergoing
treatment.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material
available on record.
(Downloaded on 03/06/2025 at 09:43:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26720] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-661/2025]
This Court, while rejecting the second bail application moved
on behalf of the petitioner, granted him liberty to file a fresh bail
application after recording the statements of the medical jurist
and the investigating officer. The statements of the minor children
of the deceased (P.W.1 and 2) were already on available record at
the time when second bail application of the petitioner was
decided by this Court.
The statements of the investigating officer (P.W.4) and
medical jurist (P.W.5) have been recorded before the competent
criminal court. The statements of investigating officer indicate that
apart from disclosure statement of the petitioner, no other direct
evidence has been recovered indicating that the deceased was
forcibly administered poisonous substance by the petitioner. The
statements of the investigating officer further show that no
independent witness has fortified the allegation of dowry demand
against the petitioner. The statements of medical jurist (P.W.5)
show that at the time when post-mortem of the deceased was
conducted, certain injuries were found on her body.
In the opinion of this Court, the questions as to whether the
deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty in relation to
dowry demand or not and whether she was forced to consume
poisonous substance at the hands of the petitioner or not, are to
be determined by the competent criminal court on the basis of the
evidences and materials produced before it during the course of
trial. The record of the case indicates that the statements of all
material prosecution witnesses have already been recorded before
the competent criminal court.
(Downloaded on 03/06/2025 at 09:43:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26720] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-661/2025]
In the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose
would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars till
conclusion of the trial particularly when learned Public Prosecutor
has not shown any apprehension of petitioner fleeing away from
justice or influencing the remaining prosecution witnesses, in case
he is enlarged on bail by this Court. Thus, without commenting on
the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and
proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, this third bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. (483 BNS) is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-
petitioner- Harish Kumar S/o Shri Bhikamchand shall be
enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.28/2022, registered at
Police Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur Rural, provided he furnishes
a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of
Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for
his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of
hearing as and when called upon to do so.
It is, however, made clear that the findings
recorded/observations made above are for adjudication of the
instant bail application only and the trial court shall not get
prejudiced from the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
/tarun goyal/
(Downloaded on 03/06/2025 at 09:43:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)