AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Accused-petitioner has laid this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of FIR No.71/2017, registered at P.S. Mahamandir,
Jodhpur.  In the FIR besides petitioner, his father Shaitan Singh, mother Kamod Kanwar and sister Suman Kanwar were charged for offence
under Section 302, 201, 304-B and 498-A/34 IPC.
Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against petitioner and his mother Kamod Kanwar for aforesaid offences but kept investigation
pending against two others.
On behalf of petitioner first bail application bearing No. 5331/17 was filed but the same is dismissed as not pressed on 12.07.2017.
Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Mahesh Bora, appearing for the petitioner, submits that after rejection of first bail application, there is substantial change
in the circumstances. Highlighting substantial change, learned Senior Counsel contends that FSL report of viscera dated 02.08.2017 clearly suggests
negative tests for metallic poisons, methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and insecticides. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore,
submits that offence under Section 302 IPC against the petitioner is under serious cloud. Learned counsel Mr. Bora, while referring to FSL report
of handwriting on alleged suicide note of the deceased, Dilsukh Kanwar @ Tita, would urge that expert has clearly opined handwriting on it of the
deceased. Learned Senior Counsel has, therefore, urged that offence of unnatural death within seven years of matrimony of the deceased too is
questionable.  Senior Counsel submits that allegations of subjecting deceased to cruelty or harassment by the petitioner soon before her death in
connection with any demand for dowry are also omnibus.  Lastly, learned Senior Counsel has contended that co-accused Kamod Kanwar has
been enlarged on bail, and so far there is no progress in the trial, is yet another mitigating circumstance for enlarging petitioner on bail, who is in
custody since 26.02.2017.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed this second bail application. It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that there is no
change much less material change in the circumstances after rejection of first bail application.
Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that autopsy report of the deceased clearly and unequivocally reveals 4 ante-mortem injuries besides
showing cause of death throttling (manual strangulation). Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor would contend that unnatural death of deceased Dilsukh
Kanwar within three and half years of marriage and prima facie evidence of her harassment for demand of dowry makes out a clear case of offence
under Section 304-B IPC.
I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and perused the materials available on record.
At the outset, it may be observed that FSL Report of viscera dated 2nd of August 2017 is suggesting negative tests for metallic poisons, cyanide,
alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers, insecticides etc but then cause of death shown in the autopsy report is throttling (manual strangulation),Â
therefore, in my view, argument of learned Senior Counsel, that there is substantial change in the circumstances after rejection of first bail application,
is per se not tenable being ambitious plea.  True it is that FSL report of handwriting expert is indicating handwriting of the deceased on the alleged
suicide note but then at this stage the same cannot be read in isolation to the other materials available on record.  In common parlance, suicidal
strangulation is not very common. Moreover, prima facie, throttling by fingers cannot possibly be suicidal. The mark of external injury on the
person of deceased and prima facie evidence of subjecting her to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry coupled with a very vital fact of
unnatural death within three and half years of matrimony has also dissuaded me to exercise discretion in favour of petitioner.Â
Therefore, viewed from any angle, I feel disinclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioner and consequently this second bail application is rejected.