HEMRAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me.

(2.) Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the present case FIR was lodged as far back as on 8.9.2008 for offence u/s.304B of IPC, whereas in the medical examination report/postmortem report, the experts have opined that the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained. However, the visra was preserved and sent for examination to the FSL. In the report of the laboratory, that was received on 21.10.2010, it has been opined that on chemical examination, some portion of visra gave negative tests for metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids barbiturates, tranquillizers and insecticides. This has been defence of the petitioner that the deceased died due to natural death and there is no single mark or injury on the person, nor were there any unnatural mark so as to suggest any unnatural death. Investigation was kept pending for almost two years and the challan was filed on 29.5.2010 and that too for offence u/s.498A read with Section 306 IPC. Petitioner, who is father in law of the deceased was arrested on 7.5.2010 and there is no allegation of dowry or cruelty against him. Further contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that this is first offence of the petitioner. There is no previous criminal case ever registered against the petitioner. His case is exactly similar to that of his father, who has already been enlarged on bail by order of this Court dated 8/7/2010 passed in SB Cr.Misc.Bail Appl.No.6207/2010.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.