KALU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned and the challan papers, I have also gone through the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

(2.) Some of the prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case. However, PW4 Mangu, father of deceased in his examination-in-chief has stated that after the marriage of his daughter, the deceased, the petitioner demanded a motorcycle. However, in cross-examination, he has stated that the demand of motorcycle was five years back and thereafter, he stated that it is true that the petitioner did not demand the motorcycle. At any rate, in close proximity of the death of the deceased, there had not been any demand of dowry as stated by Learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) Be that as it may, without commenting on the merit of the case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the statement of father of the deceased PW4 Mangu, I consider it just and proper to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail.