Smt. Dariyakanwar vs State of Rajasthan

J.C. Verma, J.—Deceased Rishal Kanwar aged about''21 years, daughter of Shri Arjun Dan Charan, resident of Gunga, Tehsil Shiv, District Banner was married to Suresh Kumar on 10-12-1994. From the record it is revealed that certain demands in regard to tape recorder and motor cycle were made. It is stated that the demand of tape recorder has been met, whereas the demand of motor-cycle could not be met and, ultimately on the fateful day, the deceased died because of burning on 18-4-1997. She had 100% burns on her body. A first information report was recorded after 7 days on 25-4-1997 at the instance of the brother of the deceased against the petitioner and the husband of the deceased. The husband of the deceased is already in judicial custody since 11-5-1997. charge-sheet.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased had committed suicide on 18-4-1997 and immediately under the proceedings of Section 174, Cr. P.C. started before the Sub-Divisional Officer, the father and another brother of the deceased had not shown any apprehension of maltreatment by the petitioner or the husband of the deceased. It is stated that the deceased was living happily but committed suicide. It is stated that there was no demand of dowery whatsoever and a false first information report has been recorded.

The bail application moved on behalf of the petitioner u/s 438, Cr. P.C. was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by giving valid reasons vide order dated 31-5-1997.

It is a case of death of the deceased by burning within a short period of the marriage. There are certain allegations levelled which point out towards the harassment caused to the deceased by her in-laws. The fact remains that her dead body was located in the Drawing Room the details of which have been incorporated in the order of the learned Sessions Judge.

I fully agree with the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge in rejecting the application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the petitioner.

For the reasons mentioned above, the application of the petitioner for anticipatory bail is rejected.