IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of specific allegations of demand of dowry or harassment soon before the death, coupled with prolonged custody and parental responsibilities, can be grounds for granting bail in cases involving allegations of dowry death.

JUDGMENT

Amit Mahajan, J.

1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking regular bail in FIR No. 558/2020 dated 04.05.2020 registered at Police Station Ranhola, for offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. The present FIR was registered at the instance of Sh. Nand Kumar, father of the deceased Chandavati against her husband, Awadh Narayan (the applicant), and his family members under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the IPC. The applicant and the deceased got married on 21.11.2017, and a child was born out of the wedlock. It is alleged that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty by her husband and her in-laws, and was thrown out of the house after 10-11 months of marriage. The complainant on getting to know about the alleged incident took the deceased back to the parental home, and after 5-6 months, her in-laws came, made amends, and took the deceased back with them.

3. The complainant further alleged that he had given a motorcycle to the deceased in marriage, whose papers were in her name. He alleged that the deceased's in-laws repeatedly pressurised her to get the documents of the motorcycle registered in the applicant's name.

4. On 30.04.2020, the deceased called her mother and informed her about the atrocities she had been going through. She also complained that the applicant was threatening to kill her and her child.

5. On 01.05.2020, the complainant got a call from the police about the death of his daughter. He found out that his daughter had hung herself with a saree tied to a T-shaped iron rod attached to the ceiling, and had passed away. Since the deceased had been married for only about 3 years, the SDM, Punjabi Bagh was informed. In the post mortem report of the deceased, the cause of death was stated to be "asphyxia".

6. On 03.05.2020, the complainant along with his son reached the Police Station and made the complaint which led to registration of the present FIR.

7. The applicant was arrested on 05.05.2020 and has been in judicial custody since then. He was granted interim bail on the recommendation of HPC guidelines from 19.05.2021 to 08.04.2023.

8. The chargesheet in the present case has been filed under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the IPC and subsequently, charges have been framed against the applicant. The other accused persons, however, have been discharged by the learned Trial Court by order dated 06.04.2022.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant has been in incarceration since 05.05.2020. He submitted that the investigation, in the present case, is complete and no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further custody. There are no chances of tampering with the evidence as the investigation is already over and the trial is also not likely to be completed in the near future.

10. The learned counsel submitted that the applicant and the deceased shared a good relationship with each other and she never complained of any altercations or disputes. The allegations of cruelty are made for the first time in the present FIR. He submitted that the applicant has a daughter aged about 2.5 years of age who is to be taken care of.

11. He further submitted that no CDR has been obtained to corroborate the fact that the deceased made a phone call to her mother on 30.04.2020.

12. Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, opposed the grant of bail to the present applicant on the ground that there are grave and serious allegations against the applicant, and the investigation clearly reveals that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty in relation to demand of dowry which compelled her to commit suicide.

13. He further stated that by virtue of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there is presumption against the applicant that he caused dowry death.

14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Reasoni