HOTI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the petitioner forreleasing him on bail. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contendedthat the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in thepresent case. The deceased Smt. Vandana had been residing with her parentsfor the last six months before her death i.e. on 21/05/1992.In any case, according to the statement of her mother Smt. Bhagwati,the deceased had been residing with her parents for the last three months.A compromise was entered into in between the deceased and the petitioneron 1/05/1992. As per terms of the compromise the deceased was tore-join the petitioner on 23/05/1992. In the above circumstances, thelearned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the instant case doesnot fall within the domain of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner isentitled to bail. He cannot be held responsible for the suicide committedby the deceased on 21/05/1992. Hence the petitioner is entitled to anorder of bail.

(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hirdyajot Singh has oppose] theapplication. According to him the deceased was treated with cruelty andthere was a demand of, dowry as per the statement of the mother of thedeceased Smt. Bhagwati.

(3.) Considering the above facts and circumatances, I think presentcase is a fit case for bail. Let the petitioner be released on bail on hisfurnishing a surety in the sum of Rs. 5,000.00 with a personal bond in the likeamount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.