Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Harkanram Alias Harish Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27445) on 18 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:27445]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3851/2025
Harkanram @ Harish Kumar S/o Joraram, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Sevdi Police Station Bagoda Ditrict Jalore Rajasthan (Lodged
In Dist Jail, Jalore)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Jangir
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, P.P.
Mr. Pushkar Taimini, through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/06/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 483 BNSS (Section 439
Cr.P.C.) at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite
details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
1. FIR Number 14/2025
2. Concerned Police Station Bagoda
3. District Jalore
4. Offences alleged in the FIR 80(2), 189(2) of BNS
5. Offences added, if any --
6. Date of passing of impugned order 18.03.2025
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no
case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his
incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in
the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the
accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based
(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:25:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27445] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3851/2025]
on conjectures and surmises. The petitioner happened to be
husband of the deceased, who passed away at her
matrimonial home after five years of marriage. The FIR got
lodged at the instance of brother of the deceased, wherein,
the allegations of murdering the deceased was levelled
against the petitioner, his parents, sister-in-law and other
relatives. After thorough investigation, the other accused
were not found involved in the case and only the petitioner
was charge-sheeted for committing an offence of dowry
death. Two major aspects, one involvement of other relatives
of the petitioner and killing of the deceased were thorougly
investigated and the allegations made by the complainant
were found false.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitoner further submits that for five
long years, the spouse spent marital life with full merth and
merriment and the submission that had it been the case of
demand of dowry, then there must be something agreed by
the parties to the wedding ceremony to deliver the article
either before the marriage or at the time of marriage or post
the marriage at an agreeable time, however, there is no such
allegation of the prosecution. Thus, he prays to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned
counsel for the complainant opposes the bail application and
submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of
accused on bail.
(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:25:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27445] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3851/2025]
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record. The
petitioner happened to be husband of the deceased, who passed
away at her matrimonial home after five years of marriage. The
FIR got lodged at the instance of brother of the deceased,
wherein, the allegations of murdering the deceased was levelled
against the petitioner, his parents, sister-in-law and other
relatives. After thorough investigation, the other accused were
not found involved in the case and only the petitioner was
charge-sheeted for committing an offence of dowry death. Two
major aspects, one involvement of other relatives of the
petitioner and killing of the deceased were thorougly
investigated and the allegations made by the complainant were
found false. The plea that for five long years, the spouse spent
marital life with full merth and merriment and the submission
that had it been the case of demand of dowry, then there must
be something agreed by the parties to the wedding ceremony to
deliver the article either before the marriage or at the time of
marriage or post the marriage at an agreeable time, however,
there is no such allegation of the prosecution.
4.1 The word ‘dowry’ is defined under Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 and as per which, dowry would be giving
or agreeing to give any valuable to the other party of the
marriage but, it should have an inextricable and inseparable
nexus with the marriage. The thing ought to have been agreed
to pay to deliver either before the marriage or at the time of the
marriage or at any date specified or agreed between the
parties. Here is no such case projected by the prosecution. The
(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:25:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27445] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3851/2025]
trial has not been commenced till now. Investigation had
already been completed way back. There is high probability
that the trial may take long time to conclude.
4.2 Thus, in the given facts and circumstances and taking guidance
from the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the
case of Satvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
reported in AIR 2001 SC page 2828, this Court deemed
suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the
present matter. Needless to say, none of the observations
made herein under shall affect the rights of either of the
parties during trial and this Court refrains from commenting
on the niceties of the matter.
5. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 483
BNSS (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed and it is ordered that
the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be
enlarged on bail provided he/she 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/her
appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of
hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
42-AnilKC/-
(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:25:51 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)