CRM-M-7219 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7219 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.05.2011 Sharad Gautam ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the complainant. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) CRM Nos.26754-55 of 2011 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRM No.7219 of 2011 Present petition is filed seeking regular bail in case FIR No.513 dated 16.9.2010 under Sections 498-A/406/304-B/34 IPC, Police Station City Gurgaon, District Gurgaon. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned senior Advocate, for the petitioner, assisted by Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, states that Rajni @ Barkha Gautam, deceased has committed suicide by hanging on 16.9.2010 because she was under the depression due untimely death of baby girl on 14.9.2010. Learned senior counsel has further argued that father of the CRM-M-7219 of 2011 (O&M) -2- deceased Mr. Rameshwar Parshad has stated before the police that Rani has committed suicide because she was under the depression due to untimely death of the baby girl, therefore, he does not suspect anything foul. On the same day, FIR was lodged by the mother of the deceased. From the contents of the FIR, it is clear that petitioner has not raised any demand of dowry any time. Learned senior Advocate has further argued that since deceased was never harassed by the petitioner for demand of dowry, hence, offence under Section 304-B is not made out. Learned senior counsel has further argued that only allegation against the father- in-law – accused/petitioner is that he did not allow the deceased to meet her parents and has mis-behaved with the parents of the deceased daughter-in-law. He has further argued that there is no whisper in the FIR that present petitioner has ever raised any demand of dowry soon before her death. He further states that tendency of the people to rope in all the family members cannot be ruled out. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has vehemently opposed the bail application stating that there is allegation in the FIR that sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage, however, deceased was being harassed for bringing less dowry at the time of her marriage. Mr. Dhir while placing reliance on the statement of the complainant states that father of the deceased has stated that he has no grievance against the accused party, however, since mother of the deceased has appeared as witness in the witness box, therefore, prima facie case under Section 304-B IPC is made out. Fact remains that father of the deceased has stated before the police that he has no grievance against the accused party and does not CRM-M-7219 of 2011 (O&M) -3- suspect anything foul. In the opinion of this Court, any dowry demand should have been raised, in normal circumstances, from the father of the deceased and not from the mother of the deceased as per the prevailing tradition in the Indian society. Without expression any opinion on the merits of the case and considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. (Alok Singh) Judge May 17, 2011 R.S.