Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

2. A case under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (for short `I.P.C.') has been registered and charge-sheet has been filed against the accused petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that marriage took place almost 10 years back from the date of occurrence, thus a case under Section 304-B IPC is not made out against the petitioners. Hence, on that ground alone, the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail. A reference of the judgment of this Court in the case of Heera Ram vs. State reported in 2000 Cr.LR (Raj.) 505 has been given to show that `Muklava' is not considered to be a date of marriage for the purpose of reckoning period of 7 years in view of the provisions of Section 304-B IPC and the case of the present petitioners is covered by the aforesaid judgment.

4. Coming to the merit of the case, it is stated that deceased committed suicide, which is clear from the fact that door of the room was found locked from the inside. The deceased poured kerosene on her and thereupon due to fire, she was burnt to the extent of 90%. Thus, looking to the aforesaid, even on merit, the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the bail application and submit that date of marriage has to be reckoned from the date of `Gauna', which took place almost one and half year back from the date of occurrence. In view of the aforesaid, a case has rightly been registered and charge-sheet under Section 304-B IPC has also rightly been filed.

6. To support the arguments, a reference of the judgment of this Court in the case of Yatesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1999(1) R.R.C. 227 = RLW 1998(3) Raj. 1881 has been given. In the aforesaid case also, the issue for determination of period of 7 years was considered from the date of "Gauna" and while subsequent judgment was given by this Court, earlier judgment referred to above was not even considered. The deceased was at the age of 18-19 years at the time of occurrence. Thus, marriage was not even permissible at the age of 8 years if story taken up by the accused petitioners is accepted that the marriage took place 10 years back.

7. Reference of Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act has also been given to show that marriage cannot take place when girl has not attended the age of 18 years. In fact, it is only after "Gauna" that marriage takes place and girl comes in relation to the boy. Hence, looking to the aforesaid, first ground raised by counsel for petitioners cannot be accepted.

8. Coming to the merits of the case, it is stated that occurrence took place almost one and half year of the marriage (Gauna), thus as per the provisions of the Evidence Act, presumption goes against the petitioners. The evidence collected during investigation clearly shows that room was not locked from inside. Thus, in the manner occurrence took place and a young lady died therein, the petitioners may not be granted bail.

9. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record of the case carefully.

10. The fist issue is as to whether a period of 7 years can be counted from the date when "Gauna" took place or it should be from the date when symbolic marriage took place. The provisions of Section 304-B of IPC attracts when occurrence takes place within a period of 7 years of marriage. In view of the aforesaid, it is necessary to determine the issue as to from which date period of 7 years is to be taken. There exists two judgments of this Court on the aforesaid issue. The first judgment is in the case of Yatesh Kumar (supra) wherein period of 7 years have been taken from the date of "Gauna" whereas in the case of Heera Ram (supra), period of 7 years were not reckoned from the date of "Muklava". In the case of Heera Ram (supra), earlier judgment of Yatesh Kumar was not considered,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document