PRAKASH KUMAR NAWANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The accused-petitioner has moved this second application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No.157/2014 registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur (East) for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 366, 386, 496 and 376 IPC. The first application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was heard at length and it was dismissed by this Court by a reasoned order dated 7.4.2014 on various grounds. One of the ground upon which the first application was dismissed was that before performance of the marriage at Arya Samaj Temple, Ajmer, notice according to the guidelines issued by the High Court was not given to the family members of the parties. The present application has been filed by the petitioner mainly with the grievance that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explanation the position whether notices were issued to the family members of the parties before the marriage was performed at Arya Samaj Temple, Ajmer and even no such submission was made on behalf of the prosecution as well as the complainant and the Court at his own came to a conclusion that before performance of the marriage, notices according to the guidelines issued by the High Court were not given to the family members of the parties.

(3.) Inviting attention towards Annexure-B filed alongwith the present application, which is in the form of news items published in some newspapers/magzine, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although it appears that Division Bench of this High Court passed an order on 21.10.2011 in which guidelines were issued by the Court in respect of performance of marriage in accordance with the customs of Arya Samaj, but the order dated 21.10.2011 is not traceable as it is not available on the Website of the Rajasthan High Court and it has not been published in any Law Journal and in absence thereof it is not clear in fact what guidelines were issued by the Court. Further inviting attention towards Annexure-C filed alonwith the application, which is a copy of order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in D.B.Habeas Corpus Petition No.159/2011 (Shaitan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & others), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this order is also not in public domain as it has also not been published in any law magzine and this order pertains to such persons whose age was below 18 years at the time of marriage in accordance with the customs and rites of Arya Samaj whereas in the present case it is an admitted fact that the petitioner as well as the complainant were above the age of 21 years when they entered into ceremony of marriage on 18.02.2014 at Arya Samaj Temple, Ajmer and, therefore, this order is not of any benefit to the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner further invited attention towards Annexure-I and Annexure-J filed alongwith the application and argued that in fact the required notices were issued on 9.2.2014 to the father of the prosecutrix as well as father of the petitioner well before the marriage was performed on 18.02.2014 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the guidelines issued by the High Court were not complied with and, therefore, one of the main grounds on which the first application was dismissed stands falsified. It was also submitted that Annexure-K filed alongwith the application clearly shows that joint application for marriage performance alongwith all the required documents was filed by the parties on 18.2.2014 in the presence of two witnesses who are in fact friends of the prosecutrix. It was also brought to the knowledge of the Court that although the marriage between the parties was registered on 26.2.2014 at Municipal Corporation, Ajmer and certificate of marriage was also issued on that date but in fact both the parties appeared before the Corporation on 18.2.2014 immediately after their marriage for the purpose of registration of the marriage and required application alongwith the documents were also produced before the Corporation on 18.2.2014 itself and, therefore, presence of the prosecutrix before the Corporation cannot be doubted on the ground that she was present at Jaipur on 26.2.2014 when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. It was also submitted that both the parties are major and they are legally entitled to enter into marriage at their own will and no law of the land prohibits their marriage and even prior permission of parents or any relative of the parties is not required before the marriage is taken place. It was submitted that in fact the marriage was performed in accordance with the customs and rites of Hindu Marriage Act in presence of the friends of both the parties at Arya Samaj Temple, Ajmer although a certificate of marriage was issued by the Arya Samaj Temple, Ajmer and the marriage was also got registered at Municipal Corporation, Ajmer as law requires that every marriage is to be registered.