The court emphasized the presumption of innocence, the delay in trial commencement, and the completion of the investigation as factors for granting bail, while also addressing the apprehension of witness influence by imposing strict conditions on the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Mahajan, J. (Oral)

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail in FIR No.0394/2022 under Sections 304B/34 IPC registered at PS Narela.

2. The version of the prosecution is that the deceased Poonam was married to the petitioner on 30.11.2020. The petitioner had misrepresented to the deceased that he is a law graduate and practising lawyer. Subsequently, the deceased came to know that the petitioner was having an extra marital affair and was into betting. The relation of the deceased with the petitioner thus, became strained and she had also filed the following cases against the petitioner - (i) a petition under Section 125 CrPC; (ii) a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act (`DV Act'); (iii) an FIR under Section 498A/406/34 IPC; and (iv) a Divorce Petition.

3. On 07.08.2022, the deceased Poonam committed suicide, which led to the registration of the aforesaid FIR under Section 304B/34 IPC on a complaint made by the father of deceased.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the deceased got married on 30.11.2020, however, on account of matrimonial discord they started living separately w.e.f. 19.04.2021. He further submits that the deceased was a patient of anxiety and depression for which she had been taking treatment from North Point Clinic as well as from Dr Sumit Gupta. He further submits that even before committing suicide on the same day the petitioner visited Dr. (Sqn. Ldr.) Vinod Kumar Verma for her respiratory problem.

5. He submits that not only the deceased had been staying separately from the petitioner but had also filed four cases as enumerated hereinabove. He contends that ever since the deceased had started staying separately from the petitioner there was no contact between the petitioner and the deceased, therefore, there was no question of any harassment or cruelty being meted out to the deceased at the hands of the petitioner and that too soon before her death.

6. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.08.2022; the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, the custody of the petitioner is no more required. He further contends that in the charge-sheet as many as 22 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution and conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time. He, therefore, urges that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

7. Per contra, learned APP supported by the learned counsel for the complainant has argued on the lines of the status report. On a query put by the Court as regard the ailment for which the deceased had been taking treatment from North Point Clinic, Dr Sumit Gupta as well as from Dr. (Sqn. Ldr.) Vinod Kumar Verma, the learned APP has invited the attention of the Court to the charge-sheet from the file of the Investigating Officer.

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has also invited the attention of the Court to the statement of the father of the deceased, which has been recorded under Section 161 CrPC, to contend that on 06.08.2022, a day prior to the day when the deceased committed suicide, the petitioner had met the deceased on the way to Narela and had threatened the deceased, which became a reason for the deceased to take an extreme step of committing suicide. He submits that if enlarged on bail the petitioner may influence the material witnesses.

9. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned APP, as well as, the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record.

10. This Court is conscious of the fact that at this stage when an application for bail is being considered the probative value of the material which is on record along with the charge-sheet cannot be considered; that is for the learned Trial Court to consider during the trial. However, it cannot be overlooked that the deceased was staying separately from