LAXMIDHAR NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners states that the defect has already beet removed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.K. Das, learned AddI. Standing Counsel. The petitioners in G.R. Case No. 982 of 1996 of the Court of SDJM Bhubaneswar who were charged under Section. 498-A, 304-B/302/34, IPC have prayed for ball. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there is no material to make out a case under Sections. 304-B and 302/34, IPC. The materials on record at best made out a case under Section 4998-A. It is further submitted that even it is accepted that there was ill-treatment and torture by the petitioners which ultimately led the deceased to commit suicide, the same may not make out a case under Section 304-B as the alleged torture was not in connection with any demand of dowry. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that any demand made through the daughterin-law may not amount to dowry if there was no agreement at the time of marriage for giving any dowry to the bridegroom. From the FIR lodged by the brother of the deceased, it appears that there was no agreement for giving any dowry subsequent to the marriage. Therefore, the demand, if any, made at a later stage even within the period of seven years of the marriage may not amount to dowry. There is also no material on record to implicate the petitioners directly with an offence under Sec. 302 IPC. The petitioners are permanent residents of village Bankula and there is no reason for any apprehension that they would abscond in case they are released on bail. Considering all the above circumstances, the prayer for bail is allowed. Let the petitioners be enlarged on bail for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with one surety each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the SDJM, Bhubaneswar. Petition allowed.