IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.73 of 2008 Decided on: March 10, 2008. Shyam Lal …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner: Mr P.P.Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr A.K.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.40/2007 dated 21.5.2007 registered at Police Station, Ram Shehar, District Solan, under Section 304-B I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Status report filed by the respondent. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was married to deceased on 31.1.2005 and since then they were living happily. On 20.5.2007, deceased Surindra consumed poison as a result of which she died. On the basis of complaint made to the police by Ramesh Chand, father of the deceased on 21.5.2007, the petitioner was arrested and since then he is in custody. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… case and allegation of demand of dowry against the petitioner is also false. The deceased had suicidal tendency and this fact was brought to the notice of the parents of the deceased many times. The challan has been filed in the Court and continuous detention of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner earlier filed Cr.M.P.(M) No.764 of 2007 which was rejected on 4.12.2007 on the ground that incorrect statement was made in the bail application regarding not filing of any bail application earlier. It has been submitted that due to communication gap of the petitioner and his counsel inadvertently in the bail application it was stated that petitioner had not earlier filed any bail application. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the ground that deceased died of poisoning. The petitioner maltreated the deceased and was demanding dowry from her and her parents. It has not been pointed out that before the incident any complaint was made by deceased or her father before lawful authorities regarding demand of dowry by the petitioner from deceased or her parents, nor holding of any Panchayat etc. in the past between petitioner and parents of deceased regarding the alleged demand of dowry by petitioner has been pointed out. No statement of any witness from the neighbourhood of the petitioner regarding the alleged maltreatment and demand of dowry has been shown. Ramesh Chand, father of the deceased, in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., has not stated that the petitioner ever demanded dowry from him, he has only quoted the deceased that …3… she told him that the petitioner was demanding dowry from her. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that in case the petitioner is released on bail he is likely to influence the prosecution witnesses. The allegations in this regard are vague. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in F.I.R. No.40/2007 dated 21.5.2007 registered at Police Station, Ram Shehar, District Solan, under Section 304-B I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Solan subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses of the prosecution in any manner. 4. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti, on usual terms. March 10, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)