SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The bail petitioner is in judicial custody for his having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC recorded in FIR No.60/15 of 9.06.2015 registered at Police Station, Badsar, and District Hamirpur, H.P., hence, the instant bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., has been filed by him for ordering his release from judicial custody wherein he is presently lodged.

(2.) The bail applicant was married in the year 2004 to deceased Praveen Kumari. Out of their wedlock two children were born. The ill-fated occurrence took place on 9.6.2015. The deceased has been articulated in the status report to have died by consumption of organo phosphorous insecticide which stood detected in her viscera. The FIR lodged qua the occurrence has constituted therein allegations of the accused having subjected the deceased to mental trauma comprised in his act of demanding dowry from the deceased. The said demand of dowry made by the bail applicant upon the deceased is espoused therein to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. However, incidents of illtreatment and maltreatment for theirs constituting potent instigatory factors for the deceased to commit suicide are to stand established to have stood committed in close proximity to the ill-fated occurrence. The file maintained by the Investigating Officer unfolds the factum of the bail applicant having convened a panchayat on 8.9.2014 with allegations therein of the deceased having left for her parental home. The proceedings of the panchayat recorded on 8.9.2014 portray the factum of the panchayat having struck a compromise inter se the accused/bail applicant and the deceased. The compromise struck by the panchayat in its recorded proceedings omits to disclose therein the factum of the bail applicant having demanded dowry from the deceased on 8.9.2014 or at a time prior to it. The only ill-treatment or maltreatment attributed to the bail applicant therein is of his having hurled invectives at the deceased besides upon her family members which he was asked not to do in future. The effect, if any, of the bail applicant having maltreated or illtreated the deceased by hurling invectives at her besides upon her family members cannot be construable to have 10 months thereafter continuously remained etched in the psyche of the deceased for hers hence being goaded or instigated by an improximate act of purpoted maltreatment or ill-treatment meted to her by the accused, to commit suicide. Even subsequent to 8.9.2014, there is no attribution with specificity qua date and timing of any maltreatment or illtreatment meted by the bail applicant to the deceased except an incident five months prior to the ill fated occurrence of the parents of the deceased having handed over a sum of Rs.6000/- to the latter for satiating the demand of dowry made by the bail applicant upon the deceased. The said incident being five months prior to the ill-fated occurrence, hence, is improximate qua it. Necessarily with its being improximate to the ill-fated occurrence renders it inconsequential for its having influenced the deceased to commit suicide nor obviously it is construable to be an instigatory factor qua its having driven the deceased to commit suicide on the ill-fated day. The learned Deputy Advocate General has argued before this Court qua a revelation in the postmortem report of occurrence of bluish marks on the person of the deceased being an imminent disclosure of the bail applicant having belbaoured the deceased which hence instigated her to commit suicide. However, the occurrence of the aforesaid bluish marks in personification of antemortem injuries existing on the person of the deceased besides their occurrence being attributable to the accused or hence theirs constituting evidence of cruelty perpetrated by the accused upon the deceased stands nullified especially when their appearance thereon stood emerged only when the deceased came to be subjected to postmortem examination by the doctor concerned especially when in the MLC previous to its preparation the occurrence of any bluish marks on the body of the deceased remains undivulged therein. Necessarily then the subsequent noticing of injuries on the person of the deceased by the doctor concerned while conducting a postmortem examination on the body of the deceased, is attributable to theirs having standing begotten during the transit of the deceased from the site of the ill-fated occurrence to the hospital whereupon her body was subjected to postmortem examination. Consequently, the argument of the learned Dy. Advocate General has no force. In sequel, prima facie at this stage the bail applicant appears to be innocent. Moreover, what constrains this Court to grant the indulgence of bail to the bail applicant is the fact of no material having been placed on record by the prosecution portraying that in the event of bail being granted to the bail petitioner, there is every likelihood of his fleeing from justice or tampering with prosecution evidence, as a sequel, then, the bail petitioner is entitled to the indulgence of bail. Consequently, the present bail application is allowed and the indulgence of bail is granted to the bail applicant subject to compliance of the following conditions:-

(3.) With the aforesaid observations the present petitions stand disposed of. It is, however, made clear that the findings recorded hereinabove will have no bearing on the merits of the case.