DEVINDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the petitioner on bail pending the trial of the case. As per allegations made in the F.I.R., the petitioner and deceased Gayatri were married in the year 1988 and before the marriage there was no demand of dowry from the family persons of the petitioner though parents of the deceased had given certain articles to the deceased. It is, however, alleged that in the middle of 1989, the deceased told her parents that her in -laws had started taunting her for bringing less dowry. It is further alleged that on 27th April, 1992 when the parents went to the house of the petitioner to see their daughter Gayatri, she told them that she was very badly treated for not bringing much dowry. The parents of the deceased assured her that they would talk to their relations and they would come and meet her again on 3rd May, 1992. It is further alleged that a day earlier, i.e. on 2nd May, 1992 they got the news of the death of Gayatri. It was alleged by the mother of the deceased that her daughter had been killed by the petitioner, his parents and sister.

(2.) MR . Chopra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even according to the allegations made in F.I.R., there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. He further submitted that in terms of explanation under section 304B, I.P.C., dowry shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 and in terms of the said section 2, Dowry means any property agreed to be given and consequently the demand must be of a property to be given as consideration for the marriage of the parties. He, therefore, contended that in the present case there was not demand of dowry and as such offence involved in the present case cannot be under section 304B, I.P.C. and as per the allegations made in the F.I.R., if at all, it could be a case under section 498A, I.P.C. In view of this, he submitted that the petitioner should be granted bail. In support of his contention he relied on a D ivision Bench Judgment of Bombay High Court reported in the case of Shankarrao Abbasaheb Pawar v. L. V. Jadhav1, and a judgment of Calcutta High Court reported in the case of Shankar Prasad v. State2.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Keeping in view of the clear allegation that the petitioner had been ill treating the deceased for not bringing dowry even a week before her death, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, particularly when the complainant is yet to be examined before the trial court. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.