IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.26 of 2008 Decided on: February 26, 2008. Kuldeep …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner: Mr G.D.Verma, Sr.Advocate with Mr B.C.Verma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R. No.301/2007 dated 24.10.2007, registered at Police Station, Solan, District Solan, under Sections 304-B read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Seema alias Aseema on 6.2.2007. She died on 24.10.2007. On the basis of complaint made by her father Ravi Chand, F.I.R. No.301/07 was registered at Police Station, Solan on 24.10.2007 under Section 304-B and Section 34 I.P.C. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The other co-accused in the case have been released on bail by Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan on 4.1.2008. The petitioner has prayed for grant of bail. The notice was issued to the respondent and the respondent has submitted report of the case. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application. He has submitted that the deceased had died unnatural death within one year of the marriage. During investigation, evidence has been collected which establishes the involvement of the petitioner in the case and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to bail. As per FSL report dated 1.12.2007 phosphine gas was detected from the parts of stomach, small intestine, liver, spleen, kidney, blood, stomach wash of the deceased and vomit contained foot mat. In the F.I.R. it has been alleged that on her visit to Kangra the deceased used to complain that her in-laws gave her beatings for bringing Rs.1 lac as they were under debt on account of marriage. The complainant has named the petitioner specifically in the F.I.R. The deceased was sent to her parents’ house for bringing Rs.50,000. The petitioner visited his in-laws on 14.10.2007 and took the deceased with him on 15.10.2007. This has been corroborated by Sudarshna, mother of the deceased. Sanjay Kumar, brother of the deceased, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has also stated about the cruelty and demand of dowry on the part of the petitioner. Pritam Chand, uncle of the deceased, has also corroborated the statements of mother, father and brother of the deceased. Ajay Bhaskar has stated that on 23.10.2007 in the ground floor of the building Mehar Chand and his family was residing and he was occupying the top floor of the same building. At about 8.45 P.M. to 9.45 P.M. he heard the …3… shrieks of a lady but ignored those assuming that some dispute was going on between husband and the wife, he did not come down. At about 10 or 10.15 P.M. when he heard the noise again he came out of the room and saw that Mehar Chand and his family were taking a lady by lifting her. On 24.10.2007 he found that the lady who was being taken previous night was Seema alias Aseema wife of Kuldeep Kumar. During investigation, diary writings have also been collected. The death of Seema is not natural. She died nearly 8 ½ months after the marriage. In normal course, a newly married woman will not take extreme step of ending her life unless she is forced to finish her life. The father, mother, brother and uncle of the deceased have named the petitioner for beatings and demanding dowry. Simply because co-accused of the petitioner have been released on bail that itself is not enough to release the petitioner also on bail. The case of the petitioner is on different footing. On behalf of the petitioner no explanation has been given what compelled Seema to end her life. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case has been made out for releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 4. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. February 26, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)