RAJESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I shall dispose of above two applications for anticipatory bail/bail made by the applicant/accused person. The applicant/accused have been named by parents of the deceased in offence under Sections 304-B, 498- A IPC. The deceased had committed suicide at her in-laws house and after her suicide on the basis of statement of her parents, an FIR under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC was registered against in-laws of the deceased.

(2.) A perusal of the statements made by the father, mother and brother of the deceased to I.O as well as to the SDM would show that all of them consistently stated that the in-laws were not allowing their daughter/sister to come to their house or to telephone them and they had not no contact with the daughter. However, mother of the deceased made statement that about one and half month prior to the incident while her daughter was going to dispensary to take medicine for her son, aged about nine and a half months, she had met her on the way and she complained to her that her mother-in- law, her husband and husband's brother used to harass her and threaten her not to meet her parents neither her parents should come to meet her and if they had come, they would be killed and they used to taunt her for bringing less dowry. She alleged a second chance meeting about 4-5 days before the incident and repeated the same complaint having been made by her daughter. The brother of the deceased in his statement has stated that his sister had met him only once after marriage i.e. on the day of Raksha Bandhan and on that day, her husband had come and quarreled with him and taken her back without tying Rakhi. Her in-laws did not allow her to make a phone call and were not allowing her to come to their house. It was only after two and a half year that news was received that his sister used to be under pressure and was being harassed. The statement of father shows that he had gone to her daughter's house on one occasion before Raksha Bandhan with 20 kg of `Jalebi' and on another occasion at the time of some "Jagaran" with `Mathees' but mother-in-law of the deceased threw away these things and shown dissatisfaction. Her daughter was not allowed to make a telephone call nor allowed to meet them. No message was received to him from his daughter. All these three witnesses despite saying that the deceased was neither talking to them nor meeting them made allegation of dowry demand by the in-laws, without disclosing the source as to who told them about the dowry demand by the in-laws. The chance meeting as described by the mother of the deceased seems to have been introduced, because these chance meeting have been shown just before the death. It is a fact that houses of parents of the girl and in-laws were not at far off places. While parents were living at F- 662, Mangol Puri, Delhi, the in-laws were living at E-594, Mangol Puri, Delhi. Thus, the two families were living at two adjoining blocks of Mangol Puri. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the husband and the wife was a love marriage and parents of the girl were not happy with the marriage and that was the reason that the girl was not being allowed by the parents themselves to meet them.

(3.) The learned counsel for the State has submitted that there was no evidence to show that it was love marriage. It was an arranged marriage as per the statement of the father of the deceased at the time of marriage also dowry requests were given.