MOTI BAI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions have been preferred under section 438 Cr.P.C. Petition No. 1221/97 being petition on behalf of husband while petition No. 1162/97 being petition on behalf of other relations of the husband.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case diary.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are being falsely roped in. My attention has been drawn to the statement of Mst. Mamta which was recorded by the SHO in presence of Dr. Goyal in which Mamta stated she and her grand mother-in-law had a quarrel and thereafter Mamta had consumed pesticide. It was her adopted brother Balu who brought her to hospital. She also stated that she was married when she was minor and that her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband did not quarrel with her and that she was married 13 years ago. She further stated that when she consumed the pesticide, none of them was present in the house. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of this statement submitted that no case under section 304-B was made out. He has also submitted an invitation card of marriage of Mamta from which it is disclosed that the marriage of Mamta with petitioner Devilal was performed some time in the month of December, 1985. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no case under section 304-B IPC was made out and hence all the petitioners deserve anticipatory bail.