NASEEM @ NASEEB Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence under section 304-B Penal Code is made out in this case on account of the fact that the marriage between the parties had taken place more than 7 years ago. In support of his submissions, he has placed on record the affidavits of Naseer, Mamoora, Sher Mohd., Ibrahim and Ameen to show that the marriage had taken place on 9.5.1999. He has also submitted that no demand of dowry was ever made by the petitioner either to the deceased or to her parents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the death of the deceased took place on account of accidental fall into the well which resulted into drowning of the deceased.

(3.) Learned PP as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. According to them the petitioner who is the husband of the deceased had demanded the dowry and harassed the deceased. They have submitted that there is consistent evidence on record to support the said submissions made by them about the demand of dowry and harassment to the deceased. They have also invited my attention to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to show that a demand of Rs. 50,000.00 was made about two and half months before the death of the deceased and out of which Rs. 20,000.00 was sent to her in-laws house through some co-villagers.