SAROJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case arises out of a first information report no. 198/92 filed at police station Nagar for offences under Sections 304B, 120B and 201 Indian Penal Code wherein petitioner who, according to herself, is aged 14 years. Puransingh Jat had lodged a report on 20.10.1992 alleging that his daughter Murti was married with Bhupal Singh on 21st June, 1991. He had given maximum goods as per his capacity but when his daughter Murti came to the village after about a month, told that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and sister-in-law, i.e., the petitioner, are harassing her for giving lesser dowry. She stated that a demand of Rs. 50,000.00 had been made. She alleged various atrocities by the in-laws. It was alleged in the report that she was murdered on 20.10.1992 and they cremated her body. Since it was a case of dowry death he lodged the report on which a case for offence under Sections 304B, 120B and 201 Indian Penal Code has been registered. An application for anticipatory bail was moved by the petitioner before the trial court which has been refused, hence she approached this court.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she is only 14 years of age and therefore, her case falls within the provision of Juvenile Justices Act and, hence cannot be arrested. It is submitted that she was a student in Government School and according to the school register her date of birth is 1.1.1979. The submission is that date of birth of her elder brother is 1977 as per his Secondary Examination record and that there is no manner of doubt that she cannot be tried by the regular courts, it is contended that bail application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that she was not produced before the court when the learned Judge asked her to be produced and this was because had she been produced without any inquiry she would have been sent to prison straight off which would have been contrary to law. Learned counsel submits that this court in Sunder Vs. State, 1989(1) R.L.R. 224 , Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan R.Cr.C. 1992 page 609 and Farhat Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan 1990(15) R.Cr.C. 128 has safe-guarded the rights of the min others whose age is not above 15 years and whose cases fall under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act.

(3.) As against this learned counsel for the Complainant opposed the application on the ground that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in matters of dowry deaths. His submission is that this has been strongly condemned by the Supreme Court in Samunder Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1987 SC 737.