IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No.: 427 of 2009. Date of decision : 05.06.2009. Rajesh Kumar. … … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. … … Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. M.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge: This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R. No.38 of 2009 registered at Police Station, Haroli on 5.2.2009 under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC. Status report filed. Heard and perused the record. 2. Harbilas, father of Neelam Rani, on 5.2.2009 at about 7.25 p.m. reported at Police Station, Haroli that his daughter, Neelam Rani, aged 22 years had married with Rajesh Kumar, petitioner on 14.4.2008 and 1Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - the marriage was ‘love marriage’. Neelam Rani after the marriage stayed at Kalewal with her in-laws, thereafter Rajesh Kumar started living at Bathri, District Una and for the last about 4-5 months his daughter Neelam Rani was also residing with Rajesh Kumar at Bathri. Rajesh Kumar after the marriage started torturing Neelam Rani on the ground that her parents had given nothing in marriage nor she had brought anything in the marriage. Rajesh Kumar himself had talked to the complainant in this regard on telephone. Rajesh Kumar was not permitting Neelam Rani to have contact with the complainant and his family. Neelam Rani had told the complainant on telephone about the torture and demand of dowry raised by Rajesh Kumar. On 3.2.2009 at about 1.45 p.m. the complainant received a telephone from Rajesh Kumar that Neelam had taken some medicine and asked the complainant to reach Raja Hospital, Nawanshahr. The complainant told his younger daughter, Chandani on telephone to go to Raja Hospital, Nawanshahr, lateron the complainant also reached the hospital. The hospital people advised the complainant to take Neelam Rani to P.G.I., Chandigarh. The condition of Neelam Rani was deteriorating and she was unconscious. They took Neelam to Guru Nanak Mission Hospital, Tah Banga where some aid was given to Neelam, but she died after some time. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner solemnized marriage with deceased against the wishes of her parents and, in fact, the marriage was inter-caste. The petitioner himself informed the complainant when he came to know that - 3 - deceased was ailing and her condition was worsening. He has submitted that the Investigating Agency has not collected any worth believing material on record connecting the petitioner with the commission of the offence. Post mortem report read with the report of Chemical Examiner do not indicate the quantity of Phosphine gas found in the viscera etc. of the deceased. He has submitted that there is no evidence of giving beatings and demand of dowry. The marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was ‘love marriage’; therefore, the question of demand of dowry does not arise. He has submitted that the Investigating Officer has not associated the persons from the area where the petitioner and deceased were residing lastly. He has lastly submitted that the investigation in the case is complete and the challan has been presented in the Court and has prayed for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application and has submitted that Neelam Rani ended her life after about eight months of the marriage. Neelam Rani had made a statement before her sister, Chandani which indicates that Neelam Rani took extreme step due to torture and demand of dowry raised by Rajesh Kumar. In the status report, it has been stated that the petitioner is a clever person and can influence the prosecution witnesses if released on bail. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. According to the prosecution, on 3.2.2009 at about 1.45 p.m., the petitioner had informed the complainant, father of the deceased about the condition of Neelam Rani and even asked him to - 4 - reach Raja Hospital, Nawanshahr. It is the case of prosecution that the complainant had asked his younger daughter, Chandani to reach hospital and lateron the complainant also reached the hospital. In the F.I.R., it has not been stated when Chandani actually reached Raja Hospital, Nawanshahr. However, Chandani in her statement had stated that she reached Raja Hospital, Nawanshahr and the condition of her sister was very bad. In the police file, the case summary recorded in Guru Nanak Mission Hospital indicates that Neelam Rani was admitted in the hospital at 3.40 p.m. and it was a case of alleged poisoning and she expired at 4.45 p.m. on 3.2.2009. It has not been made clear when Chandani reached Raja Hospital, Nawanshahr and whether Neelam Rani at that time was in fit state of mind to make statement. The statement of Chandani does not indicate when Rajesh demanded dowry, gold from deceased and when he physically and mentally tortured Neelam. In the Chemical Examiner report, no doubt, Phosphine gas was detected in the viscera of the deceased, but what was the quantity of Phosphine gas, that has not been indicated. The instances of torture and demand of dowry have not been elaborated by the prosecution. Neelam died at about 4.45 p.m. on 3.2.2009, but FIR was registered on 5.2.2009 at 7.25 p.m. 6. I have gone through the record, but I am not dilating on the prosecution case as it may not prejudice either side. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioner had earlier filed bail application, which was rejected. I have gone through the order dated 23.3.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una rejecting the bail application of petitioner, but that order was - 5 - passed when the investigation was not complete. Now investigation in the case is complete. The apprehension of the State that the petitioner will influence the prosecution witnesses if released on bail is vague. In any case, in such situation, the State is not remedy-less. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.38 of 2009 dated 5.2.2009 registered at Police Station, Haroli, District Una under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Una with the condition that the petitioner shall not influence the prosecution witnesses in any manner. It is made clear that the observations made in the order may not be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the case. Copy Dasti. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. June 5, 2009. (sck).