BHANWAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS bail application under Section 438 Cr. P. C. was presented on 4,10. 1988 and on several occasions the case diary was not received and it was directed that the petitioners should not be arrested and they should appear for interrogation before the investigating agency. On 15. 11. 1988 it was reported that inspite of the best efforts of the petitioners they were not interrogated. Thereafter directions were issued again and on 14. 2. 1988 it was found that the petitioners had been interrogated, but several persons who could be said to be having knowledge about the case had not been examined. It was also found that the investigation had been transferred to the C. I. D. and this court directed that the investigation should be completed at an early stage and> if necessary the petitioners could be called for interrogation again. It has been stated that the petitioners have been interrogated by the C. I. D. and investigating the case, but inspite of giving last opportunity the case diary has not been produced and the matter is being delayed for a long time, so this bail application is to be decided without further delay.

(2.) THE deceased in this case is Snehlata, who died in the early hours of 20. 9. 1988 due to burning. She was taken to the hospital and she made a statement before the Doctor, which is to the effect that she was married to petitioner No. 1, 8 or 10 years ago and on the morning of the incident her mother-in-law and sister-in-law, petitioners 2 and 3 quarreled with her as to why she had thrown the child. According to her all the three petitioners used to quarrel on account of bringing less dowry. THEn at 11. 30 p. m. when her husband was on the terrace and her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were in their room, she sprinkled kerosene on her and burnt herself and her child also got burnt. She ended her life because she was tired of the constant quarrel with the petitioners.

(3.) IN Pokar Ram v. State (4) the person accused of offence of murder by use of fire arm had been released on anticipatory bail by the High Court and this order was set aside saying that the court has to be cautious and circumspect in exercising such power of a discretionary nature and it was held that status in life, affluence or otherwise are hardly relevant considerations while examining the request for granting anticipatory bail.