URMILA AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bail application under Sec. 439 Crimial P.C. has been filed by petitioners Urmila and Gayatri in FIR No. 3/2006 registered at Police Station Virat Nagar, District Jaipur for the offence under Sections 498-A & 304-B IPC.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for State and perused the case diary and other relevant documents placed before me during the course of arguments.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners contended that soon after the incident the family members of the petitioners informed the police and lodged the FIR. It is also submitted that Raajbala who is daughter in law of petitioner Gayatri Devi was taken to the hospital where she died. It is also submitted that father, mother and other relatives of Raajbala were immediately informed and they were also present in the hospital and thereafter in the cremation also and after 7-8 days from the incident just to harass the petitioners this false FIR has been lodged. It is also submitted that police also did not find any truth in the allegation of demand of dowry or the ill treatment to Raajbala and only charge-sheet under Sec. 306 Penal Code was filed. It is also submitted that according to the prosecution case there was only some utterance between the deceased Raajbala and accused petitioners in some day today domestic affairs which cannot be termed that Raajbala was instigated to commit suicide. Reliance has been placed on the judgments Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 281 and Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., reported in (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 371 .