NAVNEET @ NAGESHWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned order.

(2.) THE contention of learned Counsel is that in fact, after inordinate delay subsequently statements of some of the witnesses recorded wherein they have changed their earlier version. It has been contended that dying declaration of the deceased specifically states that under wrong notion, the deceased took some poisonous substance from a bottle considering the same to be a medicine. It has further been contended that mother, brother, uncle and all the family members, whose statements were recorded after the incident, none of them stated that there was any harassment given to the deceased by the in -laws or threatening given for bringing less dowry. It has also been argued that all the statements would go to show that deceased was treated well in her in -laws house. His further submission is that after one and a half month of the incident, suddenly the story has been changed completely and allegations have been levelled against the accused applicant.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made before me and also carefully perused the dying declaration along with several statements recorded of the near relatives including brother, mother, uncle and others. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the present case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I think it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.