RAVINDRA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Both these applications may be disposed of by a common order as they have been filed in criminal case FIR No. 32/94 registered at Police Station, Alwar Gate, Ajmer under S. 304b, IPC. Bail application No. 750/94 is under S. 439, Cr. P. C. by the husband Yogesh Prakash and his elder brother Ravindra Prakash, while bail application No. 751/94 has been filed under S. 438, Cr. P. C; by the mother-in-law of the deceased. Deceased Smt. Yogeshwari Devi was married to the petitioner Yogesh Prakash on May 27, 1993 and within 9 months of her marriage she had unnatural death at her in-law's house. The matter is still under investigation.

(2.) IT was contended by the learned counsel that the deceased Yogeshwari Devi had committed suicide in her room and a false case has been made by her parents, as her death has taken place within few months of the marriage. Learned counsel contended that the ingredients of S. 304b, IPC, are not prima facie established from the material collected by the investigating agency as there is no evidence on the record that the deceased Yogeshwari Devi was subjected to cruelty or harassment by any of the petitioners soon before her death and that such cruelty and harassment was in connection with any demand for dowry. Learned counsel placed reliance on Rajendra Singh v. State (1), Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. The State of Punjab (2), and Bhawani Singh v. State & Anr.

(3.) IN Samunder Singh's case (supra) their Lordships observed as under:- "the matter regarding the unnatural death of the daughter-in-law at the house of her father-in-law was still under investigation and the appropriate course to adopt was to allow the concerned Magistrate to deal with the same on the basis of the Material before the Court at the point of time of their arrest in case they were arrested. It was neither prudent nor proper for the High Court to have granted anticipatory bail which order was very likely to occasion prejudice by its very nature and timing. The High Court is under no compulsion to exercise its jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in a matter of this nature".