IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 794 of 2011. Date of decision: 11.10.2011. Sanjeev Kumar ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : M/s Y.P.Sood and M.N.Shukla, Advocates. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. 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.69 of 2011 dated 6.7.2011 registered at Police Station, Rajgarh under Sections 306, 498-A, 201 IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that petitioner has been arrested in the above case. The allegation against the petitioner is that he used to ill-treat his wife Poonam, who on account of ill-treatment committed suicide on 6.7.2011 after consuming some poisonous substance. It has been alleged that allegations against the petitioner are false and baseless. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner never ill-treated his wife nor any demand of dowry was every made by him. There is no incriminating Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… material against the petitioner connecting him with the commission of the offence. The petitioner is in custody since 2.8.2011. The petitioner had earlier filed an application for grant of bail, which has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan on 17.9.2011. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for rejecting the bail of the petitioner are not sustainable. It has not been established on record that mobile phone from which the alleged SMS was sent belonged to deceased and the message was also sent by the deceased. 3. The petitioner is the only bread winner in the family having two sons aged five years and 1½ years, one daughter aged 3 years and old parents. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. 4. In the status report it has been stated that case has been registered on the basis of statement of Devi Dutt father of the deceased Poonam. It has been stated that petitioner and deceased Poonam were married in the year 2005. The relations between husband and wife remained cordial for about three years. Thereafter the petitioner started ill-treating the deceased and deceased Poonam in the past had disclosed the ill-treatment meted out to her by the petitioner. The complainant thought that with the passage of time, the situation would improve. 5. On the date of occurrence, Sutesh son of the complainant told that her sister Poonam on telephone told him that petitioner quarreled with her whole of the night. At about 10 a.m. complainant received telephone from Ram Netar father of the …3… petitioner that Poonam had fallen ill and he was called at Rajgarh hospital. On this they went to Rajgarh hospital and found Poonam dead in the mortuary. The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted. The doctor has opined that deceased has died of pulmonary oedema due to orgonophosphorous poison. 6. It has been stated in the status report that petitioner has been arrested on 2.8.2011. The petitioner has not cooperated in the recovery of bottle containing the poisonous substance, during interrogation he took contradictory stand by stating that said bottle has been thrown in the forest and sometime by stating that it had been thrown in water. He has thus destroyed the evidence. On 1.7.2011, the deceased had sent SMS to her brother stating therein that in case something happened to her then her husband and his family would be responsible for that and take care of her children. 7. Sutesh Kumar brother of the deceased has supported the version of his father Devi Dutt complainant. He has stated that on the day of occurrence in the morning he received telephonic call from his sister Poonam, who told that Sanjeev had returned after three days and quarreled with her whole of the night and told that in the morning he would take out her dead body procession. 8. It has not been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that deceased was suffering from some ailment. The deceased was the mother of two sons and one daughter. She had married life of about six years. In normal circumstance, no young woman with two sons and one daughter and no history of ailment would end her life unless circumstances are created for her to commit suicide. There …4… are serious allegations against the petitioner of ill-treatment to the deceased. 9. On 1.7.2011 the deceased informed her brother through SMS regarding the ill-treatment of petitioner. There are allegations against the petitioner that on the previous night of the date of occurrence he ill-treated the deceased and threatened that in the morning he would take out her dead body procession. Thus keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out by the petitioner for grant of bail at this stage, resultantly, the petition is dismissed. 10. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. October 11, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.