In the matter of:
Petitioner's namePetitioner's description (son of / residence). PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF State of respondentRespondent description (through its Director)RESPONDENT
WITH
In the matter of: Crl. M.P. No. Crl. M.P. number for stay of arrest application of 2013
An application for ex-parte stay of arrest.
AND
Crl. M.P. No. Crl. M.P. number for exemption from translation application of 2013
An application for exemption from filing the official English translation.
AND
Crl. M.P. No. Crl. M.P. number for exemption from certified copy application of 2013
An application under Order XLVII of the Supreme Court for exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures.
PAPER BOOK
FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
INDEX
S.NO.PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1.O/R on limitation
2.List of Dates
3.Impugned judgment and final order dated dd.mm.yyyy in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. High Court bail application number of 2013, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
4.Special Leave Petition with affidavit
5.Annexure P-1 — True translated copy of FIR No. FIR number/13 under Sections 498-A/406 IPC, P.S. Police station of FIR, dated dd.mm.yyyy
6.Annexure P-2 — Copy of order dated dd.mm.yyyy
7.Annexure P-3 — Copy of order dated dd.mm.yyyy
8.Annexure P-4 — Photographs showing the said illicit relationship
9.Crl. M.P. No. Crl. M.P. number for stay of arrest application of 2013 — An application for ex-parte stay of arrest
10.Crl. M.P. No. Crl. M.P. number for exemption from translation application of 2013 — An application for exemption from filing the official English translation
11.Crl. M.P. No. Crl. M.P. number for exemption from certified copy application of 2013 — An application under Order XLVII of the Supreme Court for exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures
LIST OF DATES
dd.mm.yyyyThe Petitioner joined the services of the Indian Air Force Station, Belgaon, Karnataka, and is presently posted at a CISF Unit deployed at Mehsana, ONGC. The Petitioner is aged about 58 years and has remained in a transferable job throughout India during his entire service career.
March, yyyyIn the month of March, yyyy, the engagement ceremony between Petitioner's son's name, son of the Petitioner, and Smt. Daughter-in-law's name, daughter of Sh. Daughter-in-law's father's name, resident of Daughter-in-law's residence, Rajasthan, was solemnised.
19.7.2010The son of the Petitioner was married to the Complainant, Complainant's name, on Date of marriage (dd.mm.yyyy) according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi. The Petitioner never raised any demand of dowry, costly articles, jewellery, clothes or any other valuable things or properties from the Complainant or her parental family members at any point of time — whether before the marriage, at the time of the marriage, or thereafter — and never caused any kind of harassment, cruelty or atrocities upon the Complainant at any point of time. The Petitioner never interfered in the matrimonial life of the Complainant and her husband at any point of time. No list of articles, jewellery or gifts was prepared between the parties at the time of the marriage.
dd.mm.yyyyThe Complainant, in collusion and connivance with her parental family members, left the company of the Petitioner's son from the premises bearing No. Premises number where complainant left from.
The Complainant, during her stay with her husband, never lodged any complaint whatsoever, either before the CAW Cell, any police authority or any court, in respect of any alleged demand of dowry or harassment against the Petitioner.
dd.mm.yyyyThe Complainant, after almost two years of leaving the company of her husband, misusing and abusing the process of law and with the dishonest and fraudulent intention of causing mental torture, pain, agony, suffering and setback, lodged false, fabricated, manipulated, concocted and vexatious criminal proceedings vide criminal case No. Criminal case number/13 under Sections 498-A/406 IPC at P.S. Police station of criminal case, as per the directions of the CJM Court.
27.6.2013The police officials, namely SHO's name, SHO, P.S. CAW Cell, Police station of CAW Cell, arrested the wife of the Petitioner and received the articles.
The Petitioner has an apprehension of his arrest. The bail application of the Petitioner was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Name of ASJ who dismissed bail application, Ld. ASJ (RHJS), Nagaur, vide its order dated dd.mm.yyyy.
dd.mm.yyyyThe Hon'ble Name of High Court Justice was pleased to direct the Petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on dd.mm.yyyy, and the matter was adjourned to dd.mm.yyyy. In compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Jodhpur, the Petitioner joined the enquiry/investigation on dd.mm.yyyy and extended full cooperation and coordination to the investigating agency, but no incriminatory articles were recovered from the possession of the Petitioner.
25.9.2013The Petitioner filed a petition for the grant of bail before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vide S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. High Court bail application number (list of dates) of 2013, and the Hon'ble High Court, vide its order dated 25.9.2013, dismissed the bail application of the Petitioner. (Impugned order)
Hence the present Special Leave Petition.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No.of 2013
In the matter of:
Petitioner's name (cause title)
S/O Sh. Petitioner's father's name
R/O Petitioner's residence
AccusedPetitioner Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan,
Through its Director of Prosecution Cell,
New DelhiProsecution Respondent Respondent
AND
In the matter of: PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED 25.9.2013 IN S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. High Court bail application number (petition body) OF 2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
To,
The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and his Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
The Humble Petition of the above-named Petitioner.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH AS UNDER:
1.That the present petition has been filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment and final order dated 25.9.2013 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. High Court bail application number (petition body) of 2013, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, whereby the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the Petitioner.
2.QUESTION OF LAW:
The instant petition raises the following substantial questions of law of public importance, which have not been decided earlier by this Hon'ble Court:
(a)Whether any other list of articles or dowry can be looked into for any legal purpose or consideration, and whether any recovery of articles can be effected, where the list and the subject matter placed before the Court have not been prepared in accordance with the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985?
(b)Whether the investigating agency and the Hon'ble Court can compel the accused persons to return articles as per a list which has not been prepared in accordance with the Dowry Prohibition Rules and Regulations, 1985?
(c)What is the legality and validity of a list which was not prepared by both sides at the time of the marriage in compliance with the Dowry Prohibition Rules and Regulations?
(d)Whether the Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to enforce a list which has not been prepared in accordance with the Dowry Prohibition Rules and Regulations?
(e)Whether a person can be denied the privileges, concessions and benefits of bail if he fails to return articles as per a list which has no legal value and which is null, void and non est in the eyes of law?
(f)Whether a person who is a permanent resident of Delhi and against whom there is no chance of absconding or fleeing from justice can be denied the benefit of bail?
(g)Whether a person can be denied the benefit of bail when the entire case of the Complainant rests solely upon her own statement and the statements of her interested witnesses?
(h)Whether the Hon'ble Court has the power to withhold bail in matrimonial matters?
(i)Whether a person can be denied the benefit of bail merely on the ground that certain articles are yet to be returned or recovered?
(j)Whether criminal proceedings can be used as an instrument and means of recovering articles which have not been listed in a list prepared in accordance with the Dowry Prohibition Rules?
(k)Whether the investigating agency has the power and authority to recover articles in accordance with a list of articles which was never prepared at the time of the marriage?
3.That the brief facts of the present case are set out hereinafter.
4.That the Petitioner joined the services of the Indian Air Force Station, Belgaon, Karnataka on 25.3.1990 and is presently posted at Petitioner's current place of posting. The Petitioner is aged about 58 years and has remained in a transferable job throughout India for the whole of his service career.
5.That in the month of March, 2010, the engagement ceremony between the son of the Petitioner, namely Petitioner's son's name (petition body), and Smt. Daughter-in-law's name (petition body), D/o Sh. Daughter-in-law's father's name (petition body), R/o Daughter-in-law's residence (petition body), Nagore, Rajasthan, was solemnized.
6.That the son of the Petitioner was married to the Complainant, Complainant's name (petition body), on dd.mm.yyyy according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi. The Petitioner never raised any demand for dowry, costly articles, jewellery, clothes or any other valuable things or properties from the Complainant or her parental family members at any point of time, whether before the marriage, at the time of the marriage or thereafter, and never caused any kind of harassment, cruelty or atrocity to the Complainant at any point of time. The Petitioner never interfered in the matrimonial life of the Complainant and her husband at any point of time. No list of articles, jewellery or gifts exchanged between the parties was prepared at the time of the marriage.
7.That the Complainant, in collusion and connivance with her parental family members, left the company of the Petitioner's son from the premises bearing No. Premises number where complainant left from on dd.mm.yyyy.
8.That during her stay in the company of her husband, the Complainant never lodged any complaint of dowry demand or harassment against the Petitioner before the CAW Cell, any police authority or any court.
9.That on 7.6.2013, almost two years after leaving the company of her husband, the Complainant, in misuse and abuse of the process of law and with a dishonest and fraudulent intention to cause mental torture, pain, agony, suffering and setback to the Petitioner, lodged false, fabricated, manipulated, concocted and vexatious criminal proceedings vide Criminal Case No. Criminal case number (petition body)/13 under Sections 498-A/406 IPC at P.S. Nagaur as per the directions of the CJM Court. A true translated copy of FIR No. FIR number (petition body)/13 under Sections 498-A/406 IPC, P.S. Nagaur, dated 7.6.2013, is annexed herewith as Annexure P-1 (pages Start page of Annexure P-1 to End page of Annexure P-1).
10.That the police officials, namely SHO's name (petition body), SHO, P.S. CAW Cell, Nagaur, arrested the wife of the Petitioner on 27.6.2013 and received the articles.
11.That the Petitioner has a genuine apprehension of arrest. The bail application of the Petitioner was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Name of ASJ who dismissed bail application, Ld. ASJ (RHJS), Nagaur, vide order dated 5.7.2013. A true translated copy of the order dated 5.7.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-2 (pages Start page of Annexure P-2 to End page of Annexure P-2).
12.That the Hon'ble Justice Name of High Court Justice (petition body) was pleased to direct the Petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 15.7.2013, and the matter was adjourned to 26.7.2013. In compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Jodhpur, the Petitioner joined the enquiry/investigation on 22.7.2013 and extended full cooperation and coordination to the investigating agency, but no incriminating articles were recovered from the possession of the Petitioner. A copy of the order dated 15.7.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-3 (pages Start page of Annexure P-3 to End page of Annexure P-3).
13.That the Petitioner filed a petition for the grant of bail before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vide S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. High Court bail application number (petition body) of 2013, and the Hon'ble High Court, vide its order dated 25.9.2013, dismissed the bail application of the Petitioner. (Impugned order)
14.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 25.9.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, the Petitioner is preferring the present petition, inter alia, on the following grounds:-
GROUNDS
a.Because the Hon'ble Court below has completely failed to consider that the list of dowry articles relied upon by the Complainant was not legally admissible in the eyes of law, as the said list was not prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Rules and Regulations. Therefore, the Ld. Court below was not justified in directing the Petitioner to return the articles in accordance with the Complainant's list.
b.Because the Courts below failed to appreciate that whatever articles were in the custody of the Petitioner or his family members were recovered only after the wife of the Petitioner was taken into custody.
c.Because the Petitioner and his family members have been implicated in a false case of dowry, which has been lodged by the Complainant only to save herself from her own misdeeds, as she was involved in an illicit relationship with another person. Photographs showing the said illicit relationship are annexed herewith as Annexure P-4.
d.Because the list filed by the Complainant before the CAW Cell is not legally admissible in the eyes of law and cannot be acted upon, in view of Rule 2 of THE DOWRY PROHIBITION (MAINTENANCE OF LISTS OF PRESENTS TO THE BRIDE AND BRIDEGROOM) RULES, 1985.
2. Rules in accordance with which lists of presents are to be maintained.—(1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by the bride.
(2)The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom.
Every list of presents referred to in sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2),—
(a)shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible after the marriage;
(b)shall be in writing;
(c)shall contain,—
(i)a brief description of each present;
(ii)the approximate value of the present;
(iii)the name of the person who has given the present; and
(iv)where the person giving the present is related to the bride or the bridegroom, a description of such relationship;
(d)shall be signed by both the bride and the bridegroom.
Explanation 1.—Where the bride is unable to sign, she may affix her thumb impression in lieu of her signature, after having the list read out to her and obtaining on the list the signature of the person who has so read out the particulars contained in the list.
Explanation 2.—Where the bridegroom is unable to sign, he may affix his thumb impression in lieu of his signature, after having the list read out to him and obtaining on the list the signature of the person who has so read out the particulars contained in the list.
(4)The bride or the bridegroom may, if she or he so desires, obtain on either or both of the lists referred to in sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) the signature or signatures of any relations of the bride or the bridegroom, or of any other person or persons present at the time of the marriage.
e.Because in a society governed by the rule of law, statutory bodies and judicial authorities are under a legal obligation to exercise their powers strictly in accordance with the Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder, and if any authority ignores such statutory provisions and the rules and regulations made thereunder, it constitutes a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. In the case of the Petitioner, the Hon'ble Court below ought to have exercised its judicial discretion strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1968 and the rules and regulations made thereunder. The Ld. Court below had no legal jurisdiction, lawful authority or power to exercise jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder. In this manner, the Hon'ble Court below exceeded its jurisdiction and failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law judiciously, justly and fairly. A court can never be a party to anything prohibited by law, and in the present case, any list which is not prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1985 cannot be enforced in a court of law.
f.Because the Hon'ble Court below had no power or authority to implement and enforce the list of dowry articles relied upon by the Complainant, and the Ld. Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the Petitioner to return the articles.
g.Because the list filed by the Complainant is not supported by any bills, invoices or other documents, and if any such document has been placed on record, the same is fabricated, as the list upon which the Complainant relies was not prepared at the time of the marriage.
h.Because there is no material on record to support the conclusion or inference that the Petitioner has not complied with the directions of the Hon'ble Court below, and there was no deliberate, wilful or intentional disobedience of the directions of the Hon'ble Court. The Petitioner has immense respect and regard for the directions and orders of the Hon'ble Court below, as they protect the fundamental rights and liberty of citizens.
i.Because the Hon'ble Court below deprived the Petitioner of the benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C., which is a provision for securing the liberty of the Petitioner, and the Ld. Court below deprived the Petitioner of his substantive right to bail. The failure of the Ld. Court below to exercise its jurisdiction has caused a grave miscarriage of and failure of justice, and irreparable loss and injury to the interests of the Petitioner, and has deprived the Petitioner of securing his liberty in accordance with the procedure established by law.
j.Because the Hon'ble Court below failed to adopt a humanistic and pragmatic approach in exercising its jurisdiction for the grant of bail.
k.Because the Hon'ble Court below wholly failed to consider that it had ample jurisdiction and power to direct the Petitioner to appear again before the Investigating Officer.
l.Because the Hon'ble Court below wholly failed to consider that, while exercising bail jurisdiction, the nature of the allegations, the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the nature of the punishment, the character and nature of the evidence, the chances of tampering with prosecution evidence, the chances of fleeing from justice, and the status of the accused persons and the victim ought to be considered, and all these cumulative factors ought to be weighed while granting bail. Bail jurisdiction cannot be exercised in a capricious and arbitrary manner, and the Court below has deprived the Petitioner of his substantive and constitutional right to secure his liberty in accordance with the procedure established by law. Bail is the only procedure through which the liberty of a citizen can be protected, and denying a person the opportunity to avail the statutory right under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a complete negation of the rule of law.
m.Because the Hon'ble Court below wholly failed to consider that the Petitioner, during the enquiry before the CAW Cell, fully cooperated with and extended coordination to the investigating agency, and the Complainant refused to accept the articles as she wished to create a ground for cancellation of bail; hence there was no justification or lawful ground for requiring the Petitioner to appear before the enquiry officer.
n.Because the Hon'ble Court below wholly failed to consider that even the single retention of the articles may attract the applicability of Section 406 IPC, and it is not a requirement of law, nor an obligation upon the accused, that they must recover the articles of the Complainant which are not in the custody, power, possession or control of the Petitioner.
o.That statutory powers must be exercised bona fide, honestly and sincerely, and for the purpose and object for which they have been conferred upon an authority. If statutory bodies do not exercise their power when the circumstances exist for its exercise in order to attain the objects and aims of the statutory provisions, it amounts to misuse and abuse of the process of law. In the present case, there was ample evidence and material on record to establish that the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail, and, being a public servant in Petitioner's employer/organisation, there was no chance of his fleeing from justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Owing to the mechanical exercise of power, the Petitioner has been forced to keep himself away from the process of law, and the action of the Ld. Court below has deprived the Petitioner of his ability to earn his livelihood.
p.Because the Court below failed to appreciate that the Petitioner has clean and clear antecedents, has never been convicted in any case by any court of law, and no other criminal case, inquiry or proceeding is pending against her in any court of law.
q.Because the Hon'ble Court below wholly failed to consider that the dispute between the parties has arisen out of matrimonial discord.
r.Because the Hon'ble Court below wholly failed to consider that the nature and gravity of the offence and the nature of the sentence ought to be considered at the relevant stage.
s.Because the Hon'ble Court below wholly failed to consider that the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the statements of the Complainant, her parents and other interested witnesses, and hence there was no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
t.Because the Hon'ble Court below wholly failed to consider that the statements of the Complainant and her witnesses are yet to be tested and verified at the time of their cross-examination.
u.Because the Hon'ble Court below wholly failed to consider that the Petitioner is a government servant working with Petitioner's employer/organisation, and hence there is no chance of his fleeing from justice. The withholding of bail by the Ld. Court below has caused grave miscarriage of and failure of justice to the Petitioner, who lives under the fear of arrest and has a genuine apprehension and reason to believe that the police officials may arrest him at any point of time.
v.Because the Hon'ble Court below has wholly disregarded the well-established judicial norms for the grant of bail.
w.Because the impugned order is otherwise illegal and bad in law and is liable to be set aside, with anticipatory bail being granted to the Petitioner.
15.That the Petitioner has not earlier filed any other similar special leave petition against the impugned order/judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in this Hon'ble Court.
16.That this petition has been filed bona fide, and it is otherwise in the interest of justice that special leave be granted as prayed for.
PRAYER
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it is most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to:-
a)Grant special leave to appeal against the judgment and final order dated Date of the High Court's judgment and final order in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. High Court bail application number (second copy) of 2013, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur; and
b)Pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL EVER PRAY.
New Delhi
Dated
Filed by:
Advocate for the petitioner
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No.of 2013
In the matter of:
Petitioner's name (affidavit cause title)PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHANRESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, Deponent's name, son of Shri Deponent's father's name, aged about Age of the deponent years, resident of Deponent's residence, presently at New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1.That I am the petitioner in the above-noted Special Leave Petition, am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, and am competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the accompanying List of Dates (running from page B to _), the Special Leave Petition (running from page _ to _, containing paragraphs 1 to _), the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions (running from page _ to _) and the Annexures (running from page _ to _) have been drafted on my instructions, and the facts stated therein are true to my knowledge derived from the records of the case.
3.That the contents of the Special Leave Petition have been read over to me in Hindi, and I have understood the same.
4.That the annexures to the Special Leave Petition are true copies of their respective originals, that nothing contained therein is false, and that no material fact has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this Date of verification of affidavit day of Month and year of verification of the affidavit that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that nothing material has been concealed therein.
DEPONENT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No.of 2013
In the matter of:
Petitioner's name (cause title)PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHANRESPONDENT
CERTIFICATE
It is certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleadings before the Court whose order is challenged and to the documents relied upon in those proceedings, and that no additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of the documents/annexures attached to the Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the questions of law raised in the petition, or to make out the grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition, for the consideration of the Hon’ble Court. This certificate is given on the basis of the instructions of the petitioner, duly authorised, whose affidavit has been filed in support of the Special Leave Petition.
New Delhi
Dated
Filed by:
Advocate for the petitioner
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI. M.P. NO.OF 2013
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No.of 2013
In the matter of:
Petitioner's name (cause title)PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHANRESPONDENT
AN APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XLVII OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES FOR EX PARTE AD INTERIM STAY OF ARREST
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and His Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
The humble application of the above-named petitioner.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH AS UNDER:
1.That the present petition has been filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment and final order dated Date of the High Court's judgment and final order in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. High Court bail application number (cause title) of 2013, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, whereby the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.
2.That the petitioner has set out the facts and circumstances of the case in the accompanying Special Leave Petition, which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. The petitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer to and rely upon the same for the disposal of the present application.
3.That the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation and to abide by such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may lay down. There is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding or tampering with the witnesses.
4.That the petitioner has a prima facie strong case, and will suffer irreparable loss and injury if an ex parte ad interim stay of arrest is not granted to the petitioner pending the disposal of the present Special Leave Petition.
5.That the present application is made bona fide and in the interest of justice.
PRAYER
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to:
a)grant an ex parte ad interim stay of the arrest of the petitioner pending disposal of the present Special Leave Petition; and
b)pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL EVER PRAY.
New Delhi
Dated
Filed by:
Advocate for the petitioner
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI. M.P. NO.OF 2013
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No.of 2013
In the matter of:
Petitioner's name (cause title)PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHANRESPONDENT
In the matter ofAn application for exemption from filing the official English translation.
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and His Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
The humble application of the above-named petitioner.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH AS UNDER:
1.That the present petition has been filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment and final order dated Date of the High Court's judgment and final order in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. High Court bail application number (cause title) of 2013, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, whereby the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.
2.That the petitioner has set out the facts and circumstances of the case in the accompanying Special Leave Petition, which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. The petitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer to and rely upon the same for the disposal of the present application.
3.That, in view of the urgency of the matter, the petitioner has not filed the official English translation of Annexures P-1 to P-3, and is filing the true English translation thereof. The petitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer to and rely upon the same for the disposal of the present Special Leave Petition.
4.That it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is exempted from filing the official English translation of the abovementioned documents.
PRAYER
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to:
a)exempt the petitioner from filing the official English translations of Annexures P-1 to P-3, and be further pleased to permit reference to and reliance upon the true English translation thereof for the disposal of the present Special Leave Petition; and
b)pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL EVER PRAY.
New Delhi
Dated
Filed by:
Advocate for the petitioner
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI. M.P. NO.OF 2013
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No.of 2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
Petitioner's name (cause title)PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHANRESPONDENT
IN THE MATTER OF:
An application under Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules for exemption from filing certified copies of the Annexures.
To,
The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and His Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
The humble petition of the above-named Petitioner.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH AS UNDER:
1.That the present petition has been filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment and final order dated 25.9.2013 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. High Court bail application number (cause title)/2013, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, whereby the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the Petitioner.
2.That the Petitioner has set out the facts and circumstances of the case in the accompanying Special Leave Petition, which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. The Petitioner craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to refer to and rely upon the said Special Leave Petition for the disposal of the present application.
3.That in view of the urgency of the matter, the Petitioner has not been able to obtain the certified copies of the Annexures and is filing true typed copies thereof. The Petitioner craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to refer to and rely upon the said true typed copies for the disposal of the present Special Leave Petition.
4.That the Petitioner has a prima facie strong case, and the Petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if exemption from filing the certified copies of the Annexures is not granted and the true typed copies thereof are not relied upon for the disposal of the Special Leave Petition.
PRAYER
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to:
a)exempt the Petitioner from filing the certified copies of the Annexures;
b)pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL EVER PRAY.
New Delhi
Dated:
Filed by:
Advocate for the Petitioner
BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NAGAUR
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 251/2013
PRESIDING OFFICER: Name of presiding officer of bail application 251/2013, RHJS
Applicant's name (Annexure order)
S/o Sh. Applicant's father's name (Annexure order)
R/o Applicant's residence (Annexure order)APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHANNON-APPLICANT
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 438 Cr.P.C.
Present:
1.Sh. Advocate for applicant, Advocate for the Applicant
2.Sh. Advocate for complainant (5.7.2013 order), Advocate for the Complainant
3.Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State
ORDER DATED 5.7.2013
1.The Applicant moved an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in FIR bearing No. FIR number (5.7.2013 order)/2013 under Sections 406/498-A IPC.
2.According to the prosecution story, the Complainant filed a complaint under the aforesaid sections against the accused persons, namely First accused person's name (complaint), Second accused person's name, Third accused person's name and Fourth accused person's name, before the Subordinate Magistrate. In her complaint, the Complainant stated that her marriage was solemnised with Name of person complainant married to on Date of marriage of the complainant, in which the father of the Complainant had given dowry according to his capacity, but after the marriage the aforesaid accused persons started harassing the Complainant on account of dowry demands and expelled her from the house on Date the complainant was expelled from the house. The complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was sent to the Women Police Station, Nagaur, for investigation, whereupon investigation was commenced by the Women Police Station, Nagaur, in FIR bearing No. FIR number (woman police station Nagaur)/13. The Applicant, having apprehension of arrest, presented the present application for anticipatory bail.
3.The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, and that the Applicant is ready and willing to cooperate fully in joining the investigation; therefore, the application for anticipatory bail ought to be allowed.
4.On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Complainant submitted that the Applicant is a named accused in the FIR, which contains allegations of harassment for dowry demands; therefore, the bail application ought to be rejected.
5.This Court has heard the arguments of both sides and given its thoughtful consideration to the same, and has also perused the case diary. From the case diary it is revealed that recovery is yet to be effected from the Applicant, and the Applicant is a named accused who is the father-in-law of the Complainant. It therefore cannot be said that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the application for anticipatory bail does not deserve acceptance.
ORDER
6.Accordingly, the application for Application for anticipatory bail (wording in order) under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
Name of presiding officer signing 5.7.2013 order
Order dated Date order was dictated (5.7.2013 order) was dictated in open Court.
(TRUE TRANSLATED COPY)
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. Bail application number of 15.7.2013 order/2013
Date of Order: 15.07.2013
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Name of Justice in 15.7.2013 order
Mr. Counsel for petitioner (15.7.2013 order), Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Counsel for the State (15.7.2013 order), Counsel for the State
Mr. Senior counsel for the State (15.7.2013 order), Sr. Counsel, assisted by
Mr. Counsel for complainant (15.7.2013 order), Counsel for the Complainant
Learned counsel for the Complainant, while opposing the bail, submitted that no recovery has been effected till date and all the dowry articles are still in the custody of the Petitioner and his family members.
The Petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on Date of appearance before Investigating Officer (15.7.2013 order). The dowry articles mentioned in the FIR shall be handed over to the Investigating Officer, who shall hand over the same to the Complainant. Thereafter, a list of those articles which could not be received shall be placed before the Court. The Petitioner shall not be arrested till the next date of hearing.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner shall also seek instructions with respect to the final settlement of the dispute.
Put up on Date matter put up (15.7.2013 order).
Sd/-
(Name of Judge signing 15.7.2013 order), J.
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. Bail application number of 25.9.2013 order/2013
(Petitioner's name (25.9.2013 order) VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN)
DATE OF ORDER: 25.9.2013
HON'BLE MR. Name of Justice in 25.9.2013 order
Mr. Counsel for petitioner (25.9.2013 order), Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Public prosecutor (25.9.2013 order), Public Prosecutor
Mr. Senior counsel (25.9.2013 order), Sr. Counsel, assisted by
Mr. Junior counsel (25.9.2013 order)
Mr. Counsel for complainant (25.9.2013 order), for the Complainant
This Court has heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at the Bar and has perused the impugned order as well as the case diary.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner does not have any articles of the Complainant.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the fact that recovery of the substantial stridhan, i.e. the dowry articles, documents as well as the cash and jewellery of the Complainant, which are alleged to have been illegally retained, is yet to be made, this Court is not inclined to accept this pre-arrest bail application filed on behalf of the Petitioner.
Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.
Sd/-
(Name of Judge signing 25.9.2013 order), J.