MANISH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.129/2018 under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC, Police Station Ranhola.

(2.) Fir was registered on the complaint of the father of the deceased. It is alleged that at the time of the marriage the complainant had given all the necessary household dowry articles as per his status. FIR contends that approximately for a period of 1 year after the marriage everything was alright. Thereafter a girl child was born. It is alleged that after the birth of the girl child harassment of his daughter started. The allegation is that the daughter used to be sent back home several times and she used to complain of harassment. FIR further alleges that the complainant was informed by his daughter that the petitioner along with other family members were demanding Rs.10 lakhs. Thereafter, after some time, he received information that his daughter had expired. Similar statements were given by the mother and the brother of the deceased.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that there is no independent witness produced by the prosecution to establish that there was ever any demand for dowry or harassment of the deceased on account of dowry. He further submits that apart from the bald and vague allegations, there is no incident or specific given by the complainant or the other witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the statements given by the complainant, the mother and the brother of the deceased are identical in nature, which shows that they are not independent statements.