1 S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No. 2844/08 (Sohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of order : 30.05.2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr. G.R.Punia for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, P.P. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and public prosecutor. Perused the order impugned dated 09.5.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Hanumangarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) dismissing the bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that firstly the deceased levelled the allegation of impotent against her husband, however, after the medical check up, the husband was found to be potent and ultimately the deceased conceived, however, the pregnancy aborted. She underwent the treatment also. Some treatment record has been placed on record and according to learned counsel because of the pregnancy having been aborted, the deceased was under depression and committed the suicide. Learned public prosecutor vehemently opposed the 2 bail application and contended that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry and there is strong evidence collected by the police during investigation and challan has been filed. Learned public prosecutor has invited my attention to the statements of witnesses namely Manjeet Singh, Sarjeet Singh, Pushpendra Singh, Krishan Kumar, Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Shrawan Singh etc. Apart from the statement of these witnesses, there are number of other witnesses, according to public prosecutor who stated against the petitioner that the petitioner being father-in-law of the deceased has been demanding the dowry persistently and there is allegation that in connection with demand of dowry, the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner and other co-accused and marriage of the deceased Jalpreet Kaur was solemnized with the petitioner's son on 13.12.2006 and her death was caused almost just after two years of her marriage and therefore, it is a case falling in the category of dowry death and the allegations against the present petitioner and other co- accused are for the offences punishable under Section 304B, 498A and 406 IPC. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. The allegation against the petitioner is for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 406 and 201 IPC. 3 Section 304B IPC provides that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. In view of the material available on record, the death of deceased Jalpreet Kaur occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances just after two years of marriage and therefore, the death is within seven years of the marriage and statements of the witnesses as noticed above, prima-facie show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. It would not be appropriate to discuss the statements of witnesses noticed above in detail which may prejudice the case of either party at trial but I am satisfied that there is prima-facie evidence connecting the petitioner with the commission of offences noticed above and therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that the deceased committed the suicide because of the pregnancy having been aborted. This may be a fact that she might have undergone the treatment for some time or the fact aborting pregnancy, but there is direct evidence of the witnesses collected by the police during investigation which 4 the prosecution seeks to produce in trial. In my view, the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. In this view of the matter as also keeping in view the provision of Section 113-A and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act providing presumption as to abetment of suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, and presumption as to dowry death, I do not find any good ground to release the petitioner on bail. The second bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp