The court established that substantial changes in circumstances are required for renewing bail applications, and evidence must be considered in its entirety.

JUDGMENT

The present third bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.170/2020 registered at Police Station Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa for the offence under Section(s) 498-A & 304-B IPC and later on for the offence under Section(s) 304-B & 406 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution witness Vikram Singh (PW-14), who happens to be uncle of the deceased and the mediator to the marriage, has stated that no complaint was ever made to him by the parents of the deceased with regard to subjecting the deceased, wife of the petitioner, to harassment or torture with regard to demand of dowry. He submitted that allegation levelled against him of receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash a day before the date of incident, does not figure in the FIR. Learned counsel submitted that financial condition of the deceased's father is not sound that he could pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as alleged. Learned counsel submitted that the Investigating Agency after thorough investigation reached at conclusion that there was no demand of dowry still, charge sheet was filed under Sections 406 and 304-B IPC. He submitted that the petitioner is in custody for last about fourteen months and prayed for his release on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this third bail application.

The first bail application of the petitioner, filed after submission of the charge sheet, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.01.2021 in following terms:

"After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this bail application at this stage.

The bail application is dismissed as withdrawn."

The second bail application preferred by the petitioner after recording statement of father (PW-1) and mother (PW-2) of the deceased, was dismissed by this Court taking into consideration that both these witnesses have levelled specific allegation against him of subjecting the deceased to harassment with regard to demand of dowry. It was also observed therein that the petitioner was facing trial under Sections 304-B and 406 IPC and in the alternate, under Sections 302 & 406 IPC. Thereafter, statements of 12 more prosecution witnesses have been recorded. More prosecution witnesses such as Himmat Singh (PW-8) and Sonu Singh (PW-13) have levelled specific allegation against the petitioner of subjecting the deceased to harassment and torture with regard to demand of dowry. The material on record reveals that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 09.02.2020 and petitioner's wife suffered unnatural death on 25.06.2020 i.e. within 5 months of her marriage. There is sufficient material on record to show prima facie that she was subjected to harassment and torture with regard to demand of dowry soon before her death. It is well established principle of law that marshalling of evidence is impermissible at the stage of consideration of bail application which is to be done by the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage. It is also settled that although, the principle of res judicata is not applicable in bail matters with full rigour but, for renewal of prayer for bail, there has to be some substantial change in circumstance in favour of the accused. Merely because one of the prosecution witnesses, who happen to be the mediator, has stated that no complaint was ever made to him, would not entitle the petitioner, who is facing trial as aforesaid under Section(s) 304-B/406 IPC and in the alternate under Section(s) 302/406 IPC, for bail.

A three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in the case of Mamta Nair v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2021) 7 SCC 442 while allowing the appeal preferred by the complainant/victim and setting aside the benefit of bail extended by this Court to the accused-respondent therein, held as under:

"6. The documents already taken note of by this Court indicates that there is prima facie material against Respondent 2. Though th