IMPORTANT POINT
Bail is rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on personal liberty of individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Alok Kumar Verma, J.—Present Second Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 154 of 2020 (Sessions Trial No. 6 of 2020), registered at police station Sahaspur, District Dehradun.

2. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 302, 498A, Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. The First Bail Application (No. 1501 of 2020) was rejected by the coordinate Bench on 07.10.2021.

4. The case of the prosecution is that Smt. Isa (deceased) was married with Aslam (present applicant) on 19.05.2013. After the marriage, applicant and his family members started harassing and torturing her on account of demand of dowry. Applicant had demanded rupees six lakhs for getting job in Railways. In the year, 2014, the father of the deceased sold his land and a sum of rupees six lakhs was given to the applicant. Applicant and his family members again demanded rupees two lakhs. The said amount was given by the informant but the torture of the deceased remained continue. Applicant and his family members demanded again rupees five lakhs from the deceased during the pandemic lockdown. She disclosed the said demand to the informant. The informant showed his inability to fulfill the demand. Applicant and his family members became more aggressive towards the deceased and they used to commit violence on her. On the night of 16.05.2020, informant received a phone call from brother of the applicant, who informed him that the deceased had died. The informant along with his family members reached the matrimonial house of the deceased and found that she was murdered by the applicant and his family members. With the said allegations, (PW2) Firoz, the brother of the deceased, lodged the First Information Report. The First Information Report was registered on 19.05.2020. The inquest Panchnama was drawn. As per the post-mortem report dated 17.05.2020, cause of death was asphyxia due to anti-mortem hanging. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

5. Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel along with Ms. Anmol Sandhu, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State.

6. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The marriage of the deceased with the applicant was solemnized in the month of May, 2013, and, on their wedlock, two children were born on 23.04.2014 and 31.05.2016 respectively. First Information Report was registered against the applicant, mother of the applicant and brothers of the applicant. The Investigating Officer exonerated the mother and the brothers of the applicant during the investigation. Applicant had never demanded any dowry from the deceased or her parents or the informant at any point of time. It is also submitted by him that since the marriage till the death of the deceased, the deceased never made any complaint against the applicant regarding any demand of dowry or cruelty committed upon her. The deceased died on 16.05.2020, whereas, the First Information Report was lodged on 19.05.2020. There is no explanation about the delay. The mother and other relatives of the deceased were present at the time of the inquest proceedings, but, they did not say anything about the demand of dowry and after well thought and consultation, the informant, the brother of the deceased, set-up a story of demand of dowry. No external injury was found on the dead body of the deceased. The deceased had committed suicide by hanging. The relation between the deceased and the applicant were cordial. Applicant was regularly paying money to the mother of the deceased because the informant, brother of the deceased, was not caring her mother and this fact becomes clear from the account

7. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, further contended that the prosecution did not clarify which property the deceased’s f