By way of present application, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to release him on regular bail in connection with C.R. No.I - 117 of 2011 registered with Dev Gadh Bariya Police Station, District Dahod for the offence under Sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard Mr.Navnit Tailor, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Mr.Tailor, learned counsel for the applicant, states that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely involved in the present offence. He has contended that marriage span was of six years and as such there was no major dispute between the applicant and the deceased. He has also contended that other co-accused have already been released on bail by the Sessions Court. He has also contended that there is one child out of wedlock and except the applicant none is there to take care of the child. He has further contended that looking to the allegations made against the present applicant, ingredients of Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code are not established. He, therefore, contended that looking to overall facts and circumstances of the case as also on sympathetic ground, present applicant may kindly be released on bail.
As against this, Mr.Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the present application. He has read the contents of the FIR and contended that the complainant has explained in the complaint that for two-and-half-years the deceased has residing with the applicant happily, but thereafter there were some quarrel between the deceased and the applicant. He has contended that the applicant had mentally tortured and harassed the deceased and the said fact is reflected from the statements of Kusumben and Parvatiben. He has further contended that because of mental torture and harassment imposed upon the deceased, she had left her matrimonial house and went to her parental house, but thereafter just to maintain her marriage, the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial house. He has further contended that it is true that other co-accused have been released on bail, but against the present applicant, specific allegations have been made and prima-facie case is made out against the present applicant. He has also contended that marriage span is of six years and therefore, presumption can be drawn against the present applicant. He, therefore, contended that looking to the seriousness of the offence, present application may not be entertained.
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the papers produced before me. It appears from the papers that the applicant was mentally tortured and harassed by the applicant and other family members and the said fact is revealed from the statements of Parvatiben and Kusumben. The deceased has stated before Parvatiben and Kusumben that she would die because of harassment and mental torture imposed upon her by the applicant and her in-laws. When there are two statements supporting the FIR, presumption is required to be drawn against the applicant.
In view of above, I am of the opinion that prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. Hence, the present application deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(Z.
K. Saiyed, J) Anup Top