1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 828 of 2011. Date of decision: 01.11.2011. Lalit Kumar. ......Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ......Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. M.S.Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh ,Judge( Oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.2/2011 dated 08.01.2011, registered at Police Station Kihar, District Chamba, under Sections 304-B ,498-A read with Section 34 IPC. 2. It has been stated in the application that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. There is not an iota of evidence that the petitioner ever demanded dowry and ill-treated the deceased. The deceased died of depression and the case has been registered on suspicion. The investigation in the case is complete and the challan has been submitted in the Court. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. On behalf of petitioner, prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 3. The bail application has been opposed. It has been 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 submitted that the case has been registered on the basis of written complaint dated 07.01.2011 of the father of deceased Jyoti died on 24.12.2010. It has been submitted that there are in all four accused Lalit Kumar husband, brother-in-law Joginder Singh, Sister-in-law Mamta and mother-in-law Anguri Devi of the deceased. The marriage was solemnized on 28.04.2009 and at the time of marriage many gifts were given to the deceased including a car. It has been stated that later on petitioner demanded `2,50,000/- for purchasing motorcycle and auto- rickshaw for Joginder. The deceased was treated with cruelty and was pressurized to bring more dowry. As a result of cruel treatment,the deceased ended her life on 24.12.2010. It has been submitted that bail has been granted to others except the petitioner, but the role of the petitioner is more grievous and , therefore, he is not entitled to bail. 4. I have heard both the sides and perused the police file. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased died on 24.12.2010 and the FIR has been registered on 08.01.2011 on the basis of written complaint on 07.01.2011 of the father of deceased. It has been submitted that the case has been got registered by the father and petitioner has been falsely implicated. There is no explanation for delay in lodging the complaint. Per contra, it has been submitted that father of deceased was under depression and after completing formal last rites of the deceased, he lodged written complaint and thereafter the case was registered. 5. It has been stated in the bail application that deceased has died due to depression. The deceased got married on 28.04.2009. She was educated. It is not understandable why a young girl in less than two 3 years of her marriage would commit suicide. It has not been alleged that deceased was forcibly married with the petitioner against her wish nor even remotely any other reason has been attributed to the deceased for committing suicide, except depression. The depression is attributable to many factors. It is not the case of the petitioner that deceased was suffering from depression even before marriage. On the contrary, father of the deceased has levelled several allegations of demand of dowry and ill-treatment of deceased by petitioner which deceased used to inform the complainant on telephone. In view of material collected by the Investigating Agency and the fact that deceased had married on 28.04.2009 and committed suicide on 24.12.2010, it cannot be said that petitioner is entitled to bail at this stage. 6. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is dismissed. 7. The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. November 1, 2011. (Krt)