IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 728 of 2008. Date of decision: July 23, 2008. Sukh Dev …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Mahesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). The petitioner has filed this application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail in FIR No. 85, registered on 13.6.2008 at Police Station Talai, under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 34 IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The brief facts of the case are that on the statement of Bimla Devi recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., the case was registered at Police Station, Talai. The complainant has stated that she has two children, one boy and a girl. She married her daughter Pooja Devi aged 23 years to Vivek Mahajan alias Sukh Dev accused on 22.2.2008 and gave her gifts at the time of marriage as per her capacity. She telephoned Pooja two- Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… three days after the marriage, but the receiver of the telephone was taken by Kamla Mahajan the mother-in-law of Pooja from Pooja and on phone Kamla Mahajan told that don’t repeat the phone calls and Pooja would not settle at their place. The brother of Pooja also tried to contact Pooja on telephone, but she was not allowed to talk to her brother by accused. The differences between the two started increasing. The accused gave beatings to Pooja and threatened her that he would divorce her. Pooja disclosed ill-treatment of the accused and her in-laws to her mother, when she stayed with her from 12th May to 28th May. The father-in-law of Pooja suffered an attack and for that also the accused and his mother blamed Pooja. On 12.6.2008, she came to know on telephone that Pooja had committed suicide by hanging herself in the room with the fan. She has stated that Pooja was killed by Rattan Mahajan, Kamla Mahajan and Sukh Dev and thereafter her body was hanged with fan so as to give it a shape of suicide. On the statement of the complainant, the case was registered under Sections 498-A, 302, 34 IPC. The accused were arrested on 13.6.2008. The post mortem on the dead body of deceased Pooja was conducted and the doctors have opined that deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of ante postmortem hanging. However, final opinion would be given after the report of Chemical Examiner. The viscera of the deceased was sent for chemical analysis. In view of opinion of the doctors on post mortem report, instead of Section 302 IPC, Section 304-B IPC was substituted. During investigation, it has come that accused had treated the deceased Pooja with cruelty and, therefore, Pooja …3… committed suicide. Rattan Chand and Kamla Devi have been released on bail on 4.7.2008. The viscera report of the deceased is still awaited. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecution has concocted a false story so as to implicate the petitioner and his parents in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that deceased Pooja was compelled to marry with the accused by her mother but deceased never wanted to marry and settle in the village. She used to remain quiet and would not talk to petitioner and his family. It appears due to emotions, the deceased had committed suicide, but the petitioner and his parents have been wrongly blamed for the death of Pooja. He has submitted that investigation in the case is almost complete. The parents of the petitioner have already been released on bail, but the bail petition of the petitioner was wrongly rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin on 4.7.2008. The trial of the case will take some time, and, therefore, continuous detention of the petitioner in the custody will not help the prosecution in any manner. The petitioner is a permanent resident of village Jejwin and he is ready to furnish bail bonds in terms of the court directions, if released on bail, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted for granting bail to the petitioner. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The marriage between the petitioner and the deceased Pooja took place …4… on 22.2.2008, the incident took place on 12.6.2008. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that deceased never wanted to marry and settle down in the village and probably for that reason she committed suicide. It is unfortunate that Pooja died only less than four months after the marriage. The allegations against the petitioner are of cruelty and demand of dowry. The viscera report of the deceased has not yet been received. The parents of the petitioner have been released on bail, but the case against the petitioner is not on same pedestal as against his parents. Therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner and the fact that deceased died less than four months after her marriage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 6. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. July 23, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.