PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition stands instituted by the bail applicant under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C, for his being ordered to be released from judicial custody wherein he is extantly lodged, for his allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 34 Penal Code recorded in F.I.R. No.106/16 of 1.11.2016, registered with Police Station, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P.

(2.) Deceased Jyoti Thakur contracted a marriage with the bail applicant on 10th Feb., 2015. She within less than a year elapsing therefrom committed suicide by consuming poison at her matrimonial home. The post mortem report prepared by the doctor who subjected the body of the deceased to post mortem examination omits to enunciate qua the existence of any ante-mortem injury on the person of the deceased at the time contemporaneous to hers standing subjected to post mortem examination by the Doctor concerned, effect whereof would stand alluded hereinafter.

(3.) The learned Deputy Advocate General with force contends before this Court that with the deceased committing suicide within less than a year elapsing since hers contracting marriage with the bail applicant thereupon the presumption enshrined in Sec. 113A of the Indian Evidence Act provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter getting squarely attracted vis-a-vis the bail applicant whereupon he stands dis entitled to claim the facility of bail from this Court rather contrarily at this stage the prosecution has hence prima facie proved the allegations constituted in the FIR.