DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. - (1.) This appeal arises from a judgment dated 12 February 2021, of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at the Bench at Jaipur by which the first respondent has been enlarged on bail. The appellant is the father of the deceased at whose behest the first information report ["FIR"] was registered.
(2.) The appellant's son was a Senior Technical Officer with the Intelligence Bureau in New Delhi. On 21 January, 2011, he got married to Anita Meena, who is a co-accused implicated in his murder. The couple had two young children aged 6 years and 4 months. The relationship of the couple is alleged to have encountered difficulties. On 14 February 2018, the deceased travelled from New Delhi to Ramgajmandi from where he boarded a train at 1800 hours for Jhalawar where his home was situated. Between 7: 30 and 8.00 pm, the appellant received a phone call that his son had been found in an unconscious state near Railway Crossing Puliya and was declared brought dead at the hospital. On 14 February 2018, the appellant submitted a written intimation to the SHO Jhalawar on the basis of which, Merg Report No.04/2018 was registered by the police. On 15 February 2018, the post mortem was conducted by a Medical Board constituted by the Medical Superintendent of BRS Hospital, which reported that the right lung, liver, spleen and kidneys were congested. The remarks of the Medical Officer indicated that the viscera was preserved for chemical and histopathological examination and a final opinion regarding the cause of death would be furnished after receiving those reports. On the same day, an unnatural death was registered under the provisions of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["CrPC"] with UD No.0004/2018 at the instance of the appellant. On 28 February 2018, samples of the viscera obtained during the post-mortem were sent to the Medical College Jhalawar and Forensic Science Laboratory ["FSL"], Jaipur, for examination.
(3.) On 5 March 2018, the appellant submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar for the registration of an FIR. No action having been taken on the basis of the application, the appellant submitted a written complaint on 9 March 2018 to the CJM, Jhalawar, who ordered an investigation. On 10 March 2018, the histopathological report was received from the Department of Pathology, Jhalawar Medical College and SRG Hospital which indicated that the lungs of the deceased showed signs of congestion and pulmonary edema. On 12 April 2018, FIR No.69/2018 was registered by PS Jhalawar Sadar under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code ["IPC"]. The contents of the FIR, which was registered at the behest of the appellant, indicate that: (i) The appellant's son married Anita Meena on 21 January 2011; (ii) Six months after his marriage, the appellant's son was selected for appointment with the Intelligence Bureau while his spouse was working as a teacher with the Panchayat Samiti; (iii) Together, the deceased and his spouse had purchased a house at Jhalawar behind Jhalawar's housing board colony through the first respondent who was working with the Anti-Corruption Bureau in Jhalawar; (iv) The couple had two children aged 6 years and 4 months; (v) The deceased had proceeded to Ramganjmandi on 14 February 2018, and thereafter for Jhalawar by train. Between 7.30 and 8.00 pm, his body was found about 30 meters away from the railway crossing culvert. The house of the deceased is behind a housing board colony, which is about 500 meters away from the railway station. The body was taken by his brother-in-law to Jhalawar SRG Hospital where he was brought dead; (vi) The homicidal death of the appellant's son had occurred as a result of a conspiracy to murder him and previously on 5 January 2018, an attempt had been made to kill him while he was on his way from Jhalawar to Ramganjmandi; (vii) While the first respondent was working as a constable in the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jhalawar, his wife was working in a school together with the wife of the deceased. About two months prior to the incident, the deceased had called upon the first respondent not to visit their house anymore; (viii) After the death of the appellant's son, the first respondent was not present either in the hospital or during the cremation; (ix) The arrival of the deceased from Delhi to Jhalawar was within the knowledge of his wife and the first respondent, which would be evident from the call data records; (x) The first respondent was present at every hour when the wife of the deceased delivered a child and he had developed close relations with her; (xi) The body had been planted by killing the deceased at some other place under a conspiracy and the murder has been committed using a special method; and (xii) The first respondent had been an active participant in the case involving the murder of the deceased.;