PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused 1 under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No. 302 of 2013. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused 1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

(2.) I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other charge-sheet materials on record. I have also perused the order passed by the lower Court on the bail application.

(3.) Looking to the averments in the complaint it indicates that at the time of marriage of the deceased with the present petitioner, 100 gms. of gold articles and Rs. 1.50 lakhs dowry was given to the father of the petitioner and for the performance of the marriage, Rs. 3.00 lakhs was spent by selling 1 1/2 acres of the property. Immediately, after the marriage, the petitioner took rented house and he was staying along with the deceased. His mother was also staying with them for some time. Since from the date of marriage, the petitioner and his mother were harassing the deceased in connection with the more dowry. The same was informed by the deceased to her parents over phone. It is also mentioned in the complaint that the reason for death of their daughter was due to harassment meted out by the petitioner and his mother. I have perused the statement of the father of the victim and the statement of relatives of the victim recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation. In their statement, they have stated about the ill-treatment and harassment given by the petitioner to the deceased in connection with the demand for dowry amount. The death has taken place within sixteen months from the date of marriage of the deceased with the present petitioner. It has taken place when the deceased was leading her marital life in the petitioner's house. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, prima facie, the prosecution has made out a case about the commission of the alleged offence by the petitioner. The petitioner being the husband of the deceased is also responsible and accounted for the death of the deceased. When such a serious allegation is made that the death of the deceased is due to ill-treatment and harassment by the petitioner and as there is also initial presumption in law under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 about the dowry death and the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the said offence, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly rejected.