IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of a proximate nexus between dowry-related harassment and the death of the deceased for invoking Section 304B IPC.

ORDER :

1. This application for bail has been filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with FIR No. 113/2023, registered at Police Station Delwara, District Rajsamand for the offences under sections 498A, 406 & 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Mr. Nishant Bora, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant before this Court is the husband of the deceased and there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry by the applicant, for which it can be said that the deceased was constrained to commit suicide.

3. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the contents of the FIR and statement of the complainant-father of the deceased recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and submitted that he has mechanically repeated the version, which was given in the written complaint, whereas Smt. Kamli Bai (mother of the deceased) has not made any whisper about demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel also took the Court through the statements of Prakash Chandra (brother of the deceased) and neighbours Smt. Santosh Bai; Smt. Lali Devi and Dharmendra etc. and highlighted that the brother had made mention of demand of dowry but that too is against all the in-laws of the deceased, without there being a specific allegation indicating demand of dowry by the applicant. Learned counsel submitted that as against the father and brother, all the neighbours-independent witnesses have accepted the factum of matrimonial discord between the applicant and the deceased but have clearly stated that the same was on account of behavioural reasons and not for demand of dowry.

5. Having invited Court's attention towards the above mentioned statements, learned counsel for the applicant argued that firstly, the case as against the applicant, so far as demand of dowry is concerned, is not proved and secondly, even if on the basis of the statement of father of the deceased, it is assumed that there was some demand of dowry by the applicant, such demand has no proximity or nexus with the death of the deceased, which nexus is the main ingredient for punishment for the offence under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application by contending that there is enough evidence pointing towards the demand of dowry by the applicant.

7. He submitted that the father so also the brother of the deceased, in no ambiguous terms, have alleged that the applicant used to make demands for dowry.

8. In this regard, learned Public Prosecutor navigated the Court through the statements of father, brother and mother of the deceased and argued that if these statements are read in their entirety, it is apparent that the deceased committed suicide on account of harassment due to demand of dowry by the applicant.

9. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

10. Analysing the statements of family members of the deceased, namely father vis-a-vis statement of mother, this Court finds that though the father has accused the applicant for demand of dowry, but the mother of the deceased is completely silent on the aspect of demand of dowry.

11. Smt. Kamli Bai (mother) though has levelled allegation of dominating attitude of the applicant but has not made any allegation for demand of dowry. While parting with the statement, she has mentioned that she has a doubt that her daughter was being harassed by the applicant and her in-laws in the name of dowry, due to which she has committed suicide.

12. Similarly, Prakash Chandra (brother of the deceased) has also expressed his doubt about the reason of the death of the deceased, while also levelling omnibus allegations upon all the in-laws, when it comes to dowry.

13. If the statement of independent witnesses namely neighbours are read carefully, it transpires that though all of them in unison, have deposed about the factum of