1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 941 of 2011. Date of decision: 23.11.2011. Karam Chand. ......Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ......Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr.Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate, with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant 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.148/2011 dated 13.09.2011, registered at Police Station ,Jawalamukhi, under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC. 2. It has been stated that FIR No. 148 of 2011 has been registered on the allegations that complainant had married his daughter with Rajiv Kumar son of the petitioner, in the year 2009. The relations were cordial initially, but after that Rajiv Kumar, his elder brother Pappu alias Mona, younger brother Surjit alias Chhota, father Karam Chand, sisters Ramana, Ranjana alias Kalu, Monika started torturing the daughter of complainant and demanded dowry. The complainant asked the petitioner and other accused that he would fulfill their demands of dowry after retirement, he has left only two years for 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? . Yes 2 retirement. 3. On 13.09.2011, the complainant had left his daughter in her matrimonial house in the morning, but in the night at about 10.15 p.m., the complainant received a telephonic call from the house of the petitioner that daughter of complainant was not well and had been taken to Naudan hospital. The complainant visited Naudan hospital, but did not find his daughter there. The complainant then went to Jawalamukhi and found his daughter dead. 4. It has been stated that petitioner filed bail application which has been rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra, on 04.11.2011 on the sole ground that the allegations against the petitioner and co-accused are serious. 5. It has been stated that petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. The deceased Monu was in family way and on 05.09.2011 she was got medically checked up. It was found that the child in the womb was not showing any heart beat, certain medicines were prescribed by the doctor to the deceased, who took five tablets collectively and died. This indicates that petitioner and other co- accused have nothing to do with the death of deceased Monu. 6. It has been stated that investigation in the case is complete, women accused in the case have been released on bail. The further detention of the petitioner in the case is not necessary. It has been stated that petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. A prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 7. The status report has been filed in which it has been stated 3 that case has been registered on the basis of written complaint of Balak Ram, father of the deceased, who came to the Police Station on 13.09.2011. He has stated that marriage of Monu Devi and Rajiv Kumar was solemnized on 26.01.2009. In the beginning, there was no problem, but after 5-6 months, Rajiv Kumar, Pappu alias Mona, Surjit alias Chhota, Karam Chand, Ramana, Ranjana alias Kalu, Monika started demanding dowry from Monu Devi. He told Rajiv that he had left only two years of service and on retirement he would give everything. 8. On 12.09.2011, complainant and his wife Kamlesh visited the matrimonial house of his daughter to attend the Panchayat. The Panchayat asked Rajiv and on this arguments started among Rajiv, Chhota, Mona, Karam Chand and Monu. The Panchayat postponed the meeting for the next day. The members of the Panchayat left to their houses. The complainant and his wife returned to their house and Monu Devi was hale and hearty. At about 10.15 p.m., the in-laws of his daughter informed that condition of Monu was serious. On this, complainant reached the house of Karam Chand, who told that Monu had been taken to Naudan hospital, but she was not found there and when he reached Jawalamukhi hospital, he found Monu dead. 9. It has been stated in the status report that Monu or her parents never reported to the Panchayat or Police that in-laws of Monu treated her with cruelty. Monu was pregnant. She was medically checked up on 05.09.2011. The doctor Rajiv Kundu after ultrasound examination of the deceased found that there was no heart beat of the foetus of the deceased, who was given some medicines, who took five tablets in one-go. 4 10. It has been stated that as per F.S.L. Report phosphine gas was detected in the contents sent by the Investigating Agency for examination. The doctor gave final opinion that deceased died due to poison i.e. phosphine gas. The challan has been submitted and the case is posted before the Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 29.11.2011. The prayer has been made for dismissal of the application. 11. I have heard both the sides and perused the record. Doctor Rajiv Kundu in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C has stated that on 05.09.2011 he examined deceased Monu, who came there along with her husband. Monu was having pregnancy of 11 weeks. The ultrasound of Monu was conducted with her consent. As per report of ultrasound, Monu was carrying pregnancy of 4-5 weeks. There was no heart beat in the foetus. On the asking of husband of deceased regarding the condition of the foetus, he told him that the case of Monu had worsened. She was prescribed some medicines. 12. I have gone through the statements of Panchayat members Sunita Devi, Sushil Kumar and Kanta Devi under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who attended the meeting in the house of petitioner on 12.09.2011. It emerges from those statements that Monu was saying that she wanted to live with Rajiv at Nagrota, who told that he had only one room at Nagrota where he was living with two more persons. On this, arguments started among Rajiv, Karam Chand and Monu and no unanimity could be arrived at. The meeting was postponed to next day. There is nothing in the statements regarding the demand of dowry. In the FIR, no specific demand of dowry or specific torture of deceased has been disclosed. The allegations are general. In the facts and circumstances of the case, 5 the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. 13. In view of above discussion, application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released in FIR No.148/2011 dated 13.09.2011, registered at Police Station ,Jawalamukhi, under Sections 498-A, 306 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 at Dehra with the condition that the petitioner shall not terrorize or overawe the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 14. The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy 'Dasti'. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. November 23, 2011. (Krt)