JIGNESHBHAI BHIKHABHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant herein - original complainant has challenged the judgement and order dated 22/05/2015 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, Camp at Botad in Criminal Misc. Application No.74 of 2015, by which learned Sessions Judge has exercised his power under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has released the respondents -accused on regular bail during the pendency of trial, in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I -18 of 2015 registered with Gadhada Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) read with 114, etc. of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Brief facts, arise from the record of the case, are as under: The deceased Vaishali entered into marriage with respondent No.2 namely Chetanbhai Bhikhabhai Gohil before nine months from the date of lodgement of the FIR and started residing with her husband, father -in -law and mother - in -law i.e. respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 respectively. On 08/04/2015, the said Vaishali had committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself. Subsequent to the incident, parents of the deceased were informed and after following appropriate procedure, dead body of the deceased was handed over to the parents of the deceased. An FIR came to be lodged on 22/04/2015 against the respondents -accused alleging inter -alia that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and demand of dowry. Pursuant to the lodgment of the FIR, respondents -accused came to be arrested and on completion of investigation, charge -sheet came to be filed on 26/06/2015. Subsequent to their arrest, the respondents -accused have preferred an application being Criminal Misc. Application No.74 of 2015 before the learned Sessions Judge, which was entertained and respondents -accused were released on regular bail on certain terms and conditions vide judgement and order dated 22/05/2015.

(3.) Mr.Hardik Raval, learned advocate appearing for the applicant would submit that learned Trial Court ought not to have exercised his power before completion of investigation. He would further submit that it is an admitted position that the deceased had committed suicide within short period of marriage span i.e. 9 months, therefore Section 114 of the Evidence Act would be applicable and presumption would be against in -laws for committing suicide by bride, if such an act has been done within a period of seven years. He would further submit that learned Trial Court has erred in releasing the respondents -accused by considering the ground of lodgement of the FIR at belated stage. He would further submit that relatives of the complainant have supported the case of the prosecution and, therefore, the application was allowed.