IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.462 of 2008. Date of decision: 19.5.2008. Rakesh alias Bindu ………. 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 : Ms. Seema Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ansul Kumar 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.467/07 dated 17.12.2007 registered at Police Station, Kangra under Sections 498-A, 306, 341 IPC. The respondent has filed the status report. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case in brief is that on the statement of Jugal Kishore under Section 154 Cr.P.C. FIR No.467 /07 was registered at Police Station, Kangra. Jugal Kishore in his statement has alleged that he performed the marriage of his daughter Monika with petitioner on 29.9.2006, for some time his daughter was kept properly by her in-laws, in October, 2007 his daughter Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 delivered a female child through operation and for that purpose expenses were shared by him and his son-in-law. After the delivery, his son-in-law took Monika to his house where her mother-in-law, sister-in- law and petitioner started cursing her for delivering female child. They started harassing her. This was disclosed by Monika to her mother Sunita Devi. After some days she was given beatings by her sister-in- law Sama Devi. The petitioner gave beatings to Monika thrice which was told by her on telephone. On 11.12.2007, his son-in-law told him on telephone to take back his daughter. On that date he, his wife and some other persons went to the house of in-laws of Monika where Monika narrated her woes. On this, the petitioner slapped Monika and Sama gave kick blows to her. On the next day his daughter and grand daughter were left at his residence. On 17.12.2007 he was at Draman where he received telephonic call from Monika who told that petitioner had refused to keep her and she had taken poison. On this he rushed to his residence and by that time Monika was serious. She had written a suicide note which was kept near the telephone. During investigation police recovered the suicide note and obtained opinion of the hand writing expert. The police has also recovered complaint dated 13.12.2007 of the father of the deceased where help of the Panchayat was sought for smooth married life of Monika. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that investigation in the case is complete and the challan has been filed in the Court and therefore, custody of the petitioner is not required in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that other three accused have been released on bail and therefore, on the ground of parity the petitioner is also entitled to bail. The learned counsel has also 3 submitted that wife of the petitioner has died in the house of her parents where she was residing. The alleged conduct of the petitioner is not immediate cause of the death of his wife. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. On the contrary, the learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that marriage between the parties took place on 29.9.2006. The deceased delivered a female child in October 2007, this was not liked by the in-laws of the deceased including the petitioner. They ill-treated the deceased and committed various acts of cruelty which forced the deceased to commit suicide. The conduct of the petitioner is the immediate cause of the death of deceased by way of suicide. The deceased has left behind a suicide note in which she has clearly implicated the petitioner for her suicide. The application dated 13.12.2007 of the father of the deceased seeking intervention of the Panchayat for smooth married life of the petitioner also indicates the conduct of the petitioner towards the deceased. He has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to bail on the ground of parity. The bail application of the petitioner has already been rejected by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kangra on 25.4.2008. On these grounds the learned Addl. Advocate General has opposed the bail application. 4. I have considered the rival contentions. The suicide note of the deceased has been recovered during the investigation in which petitioner has been implicated by the deceased. The application dated 13.12.2007 of the father of the deceased seeking help of the Panchayat for resolving the dispute also indicates the conduct of the petitioner towards deceased. This application was written about four days earlier to the death of Monika deceased. The incident took place within less than two years of the marriage. In these circumstances, in view of the prosecution 4 case there is presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. The alleged conduct of the petitioner towards deceased cannot be equated with the alleged conduct of the other persons who have been released on bail. The petitioner had more responsibility towards deceased being her husband. In these circumstances, no case for bail has been made out. Accordingly application is dismissed. 5. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application and these shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge March 19, 2008 (sks)