IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.1049 of 2008 Decided on: November 14, 2008. Sukh Dev …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Ajay Kochhar, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr Anshul Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R.No.85/08 dated 13.6.2008 registered at Police Station, Talai, District Bilaspur under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 34 IPC. The status report dated 6.11.2008 has been filed. Heard and perused the record. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner and his parents were arrested on 13.6.2008 in F.I.R. No.85/08 registered at Police Station, Talai on the basis of statement of mother of the deceased Pooja Devi recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. It has been Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… submitted that petitioner and his parents have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is in custody since 13.6.2008. Rattan Chand and Kamla Devi parents of the petitioner have been released on bail. The petitioner earlier filed bail application before learned Session Judge, Bilaspur and thereafter in this Court being Cr.M.P.(M) No.728 of 2008 which was rejected on 23.7.2008. The challan has been submitted in the Court after investigation. The continuous detention of the petitioner is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that there is no legal material on record to show that the petitioner ill treated and demanded dowry from the deceased which compelled her to take ultimate step to end her life. He has submitted that no doubt petitioner had earlier filed bail applications which were rejected but in view of the changed circumstances and the material on record the petitioner is entitled to bail. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the grounds that the petitioner had treated deceased Pooja with cruelty and demanded dowry from her and, therefore, she committed suicide on account of ill-treatment and demand of dowry. He has submitted that deceased was married to petitioner on 22.2.2008 and deceased committed suicide on 12.6.2008 in less than four months after the marriage. In the status …3… report, the prosecution has specifically stated that deceased committed suicide on account of cruel treatment and demand of dowry made by petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Sunil Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh, Latest HLJ 2003 (HP) 151, Sher Singh versus State of H.P., II (2000) CCR 75 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another, (2005) 2 SCC 42 in support his contentions for releasing the petitioner on bail. I have gone through these judgments but on facts these judgments are not applicable in the present case. There is no denial of the fact that accused is not precluded from filing repeated bail applications but once the bail application has been rejected on merits then the subsequent bail application can be entertained and looked into only on changed circumstances. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 23.7.2008 after taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case. In the present bail application no new ground has been canvassed on behalf of the petitioner. It has been submitted that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner ill-treated the deceased with cruelty and demanded dowry which forced her to commit suicide. These facts have already been taken into consideration by this Court while rejecting the bail application. The deceased ended her life in less than four months of her marriage. In …4… normal circumstances, no girl would take such step. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for bail. Hence, the application is rejected. 4. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. November 14, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)