1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.179 of 2008. Date of decision: 11.3.2008. Rajeev Kumar ………. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ..…. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. B.S. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) 1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.192 of 2007 dated 7.12.2007 registered at Police Station, Bhoranj, Distt Hamirpur under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 and 34 IPC. The notice was issued on 4.3.2008. The respondent has filed status report. Heard and perusal the record. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that ASI Chhota Ram, Police Station, Bhoranj, on 7.12.2007 at about 1.00 AM informed Police Station Bhoranj that one Smt. Kusumlata wife of petitioner was brought to Refferal Hospital, Hamirpur and the doctor has referred her to PGI, Chandigarh for treatment. The statement of Ranjha Ram father of deceased was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. According to him Kusumlata was married to Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 petitioner about three years back. He has also stated that whenever Kusumlata used to visit his house, she always complaint about the harassment by her mother-in-law and husband on account of bringing less dowry. On 6.12.2007 at about 10.20 PM father-in-law of Kusumlata telephonically informed that Kusumlata has got burn injuries and they should come immediately. On this, he along with his wife and son reached Balokhar where they found their daughter lying on a cot in burnt condition. She was taken to hospital at Hamirpur from where she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. On this statement case under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 IPC was registered at Police Station, Bhoranj. Later on Section 201 IPC was also added. Kusumlata made a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 12.12.2007, but she died on 14.12.2007 at about 5.30 AM at PGI, Chandigarh. The postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted. She was found to have burn injuries upto 85%. The case was converted to Section 304-B IPC. The petitioner filed anticipatory bail application before learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur which was rejected on 22..12.2007 and the petitioner was arrested on 22.12.2007 and since 26.12.2007 he is in judicial custody. Veena Devi mother of the petitioner has been enlarged on bail. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner and the deceased were living happily and deceased Kusumlata gave birth to a male child two years ago. The co-accused has already been enlarged on bail on 26.12.20087. The continuous detention of the petitioner is not required. The minor son Neeraj of the petitioner also requires the assistance of the petitioner who is not in a position to look after himself due to his tender age. The petitioner earlier filed bail application before learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur which was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.12.2007. The petitioner 3 thereafter filed another bail application which was dismissed on 26.12.2007 by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur. Thereafter the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge on 28.2.2008. 4. The bail application has been opposed by learned Addl. Advocate General. He has submitted that petitioner had treated the deceased with cruelty which compelled her to end her life. The petitioner is not entitled to bail, it will given wrong signal in the society. The petitioner is likely to temper with the prosecution evidence. The deceased in her statement has stated that she was Matric. On 6.12.2007 in the evening her mother –in-law quarreled with her, which was reported by her to the parents on telephone. During night she of her own sprinkled petrol and burnt herself because of ill-treatment given by her in-laws. In earlier part of the statement she has stated that her mother-in-law and husband used to taunt her occasionally for bringing less dowry. The allegations of demand of dowry by the mother-in-law and husband in the statement of the deceased are vague. The mother-in-law of the deceased has already been released on bail. The apprehension of the learned Addl. Advocate General that petitioner will influence the prosecution witness is vague. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, a case for releasing the petitioner on bail has been made out under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The application is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.192 of 2007, registered at Police Station Bhoranj, Distt Hamirpur on 7.12.2007 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201, 34 IPC on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur , subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not hamper the investigation 4 and tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not terrorise the prosecution witness in any manner . The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the case. Copy dasti, on usual terms. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge March 11, 2008 (sks)