MOTI LAL Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the petitioner forreleasing him on bail. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended thatthe petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the presentcase The deceased Smt. Vandana had been residing with her parents for thelast six months thefore her death i.e. on 21/05/1992.1 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 wasentered into in between the deceased and the petitioner on 1/05/1992As per terms of the compromise the deceased was to re -join the petitioneron 23/05/19921 In the,above circumstances, the learned Counsel for thepetitioner has contended that the instant case does not fall within thedomain of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner is entitled to bail.I Hecannot be held responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased on 21stMay, 1992. Hencce the petitioner is entitled to an order of bail.

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

(3.) Considering the above facts and circumstance I think present caseis a fit case for bail. Let the petitioner be released on pail on his furnishing asurety in the sum of Rs. 5,000.00 with a personal bond in the like amount tothe satisfaction of the Court concerned.