IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 870 of 2011. Date of decision : 14.11.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Raj Kumar alias Raju …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 46 of 2011 dated 24.8.2011 registered at Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmaur, under Sections 306, 498-A IPC. 2. It has been stated that Radha Devi wife of petitioner had second marriage with the petitioner whereas it was first marriage of the petitioner with the deceased. The father of the deceased wanted to get the marriage of deceased somewhere else but deceased was not interested to marry as per the wishes of her father and, therefore, deceased solemnized voluntarily marriage with the petitioner. The father of the deceased was not happy with the step taken by the deceased when she solemnized marriage with the petitioner. __________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 3. It has been stated that after initial inhibition the petitioner and deceased started visiting the house of the father of the deceased. The relationship between the petitioner and the deceased were cordial. The deceased remained admitted in the hospital and she was attended by the petitioner. She was diagnosed to be a case of tumor in the ovary. The deceased remained admitted in the hospital at Nahan for more than 10 days where the petitioner and his mother looked after the deceased. 4. The parents of the deceased were not treating the deceased properly. In July 2011 the deceased stayed with her parents for about one month and returned on 29.7.2011 in petitioner’s house. On small occasions or festivals the parents of the deceased were not treating her well. On the intervening night of 22/23-8-2011 the deceased consumed poisonous substance. The petitioner and other villagers made an effort to save her life by taking her to hospital but deceased died on the way. The family members of the deceased were immediately informed. However, false FIR was lodged on 24.8.2011 and the petitioner was arrested on 24.8.2011. 5. The petitioner filed bail application in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan which was dismissed on 15.10.2011. The learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the facts properly, in the order dated 15.10.2011 even the date of death of deceased has been observed as 28.7.2011 whereas the deceased died in the intervening night of 22/23-8-2011. It has been stated that petitioner is innocent. He has committed no offence. It has been stated that the investigation in the case is complete, challan has been 3 submitted in the Court. The continuous detention of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 6. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. The case has been registered on the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Shiv Ram father of the deceased which was recorded on 24.8.2011. The complainant has stated that Radha Devi got married about 1½ years ago with the petitioner without the consent of her parents. There was no problem in the marriage for the first about 5-6 months. Thereafter Radha Devi disclosed that Raj Kumar had been demanding dowry. The deceased could not fulfill the demand of dowry of the petitioner, on this, petitioner gave her beatings and turned her out from the house. 7. It has been stated that petitioner was called by complainant and advised to keep harmony. Surat Singh gave ` 5000/- to petitioner, deceased and petitioner were sent back to village Chorta. In July 2011 Radha Devi came to the house of complainant and told that petitioner had been demanding dowry and giving her beatings. On 27.7.2011 Raj Kumar came to the house of complainant and he was advised by the complainant and Gita Ram. On 28.7.2011 Radha Devi and petitioner again went to Chorta. On 23.8.2011 unknown person told him that Radha Devi had died. On 24.8.2011 he went to Shillai hospital and saw the dead body of her daughter. 8. Surat Singh in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that Radha Devi and Raj Kumar one month after marriage 4 had visited the house of Shiv Ram and stayed there for three days. Shiv Ram told that Raj Kumar had been demanding dowry. Radha Devi refused to give dowry, on this, she was turned out from the house. He gave ` 5,000/- to Raj Kumar. 9. Madan Lal in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has also stated in the same manner as stated by Surat Singh. Gita Ram has stated that on 27.7.2011 petitioner came to the house of Shiv Ram where he, Shiv Ram and Surat Singh had advised the petitioner to keep harmony in the matrimonial life. Shiv Ram, Surat Singh, Madan lal and Gita Ram did not give any specific dates for demand of dowry and alleged beatings of deceased by petitioner. As per prosecution, the deceased and petitioner got married of their own without the consent of the parents of the deceased. 10. The complainant has stated that for about 5 -6 months there was no problem in the marriage but thereafter demand of dowry and beatings on the part of petitioner towards deceased surfaced. Surat Singh has stated that deceased and petitioner visited the house of the complainant one month after the marriage, thereafter the complainant told him that petitioner had been demanding dowry which was refused. This part of the statement of Surat Singh is not matching with the statement of complainant, who has stated that for about 5-6 months there was no problem in the marriage. 11. Surat Singh has stated that he had given ` 5,000/- to petitioner but no date of such payment has been given by Surat Singh nor time period of payment is matching with the time period when according to complainant Surat Singh had paid ` 5,000/- to petitioner. 5 The petitioner has stated that deceased had been suffering from some ailment, he and his mother had been attending the deceased even in the hospital at Nahan where the deceased remained admitted for about 10 days. The complainant was informed immediately on the death of the deceased. No previous complaint to the lawful authority, suicide note by deceased implicating the petitioner has been pointed out on behalf of the State. 12. The investigation in the case is complete and even challan has been filed in the Court. The trial of the case will take some time. The witnesses of the prosecution appears to be from the parents’ side of the deceased. No purpose will be served for keeping the petitioner in jail for indefinite period. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. 13. Thus, the petition is allowed, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 46 of 2011 dated 24.8.2011 registered at Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmaur, under Sections 306, 498-A IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate stationed at Paonta Sahib with the condition that the petitioner shall not overawe or terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 14. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petition only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. November 14, 2011. (Kuldip Singh) (GR) Judge.