Honble TIBREWAL, J. — Both these applications may be disposed of by a common order as they have been filed in criminal case FIR No. 32/94 registered at Police Station, Alwar Gate, Ajmer under S. 304B, IPC. Bail application No. 750/94 is under S. 439, Cr. P.C. by the husband Yogesh Prakash and his elder brother Ravindra Prakash, while bail application No. 751/94 has been filed under S. 438, Cr. P.C; by the mother-in-law of the deceased. Deceased Smt. Yogeshwari Devi was married to the petitioner Yogesh Prakash on May 27, 1993 and within 9 months of her marriage she had unnatural death at her in-laws house. The matter is still under investigation.

(2). It was contended by the learned counsel that the deceased Yogeshwari Devi had committed suicide in her room and a false case has been made by her parents, as her death has taken place within few months of the marriage. Learned counsel contended that the ingredients of S. 304B, IPC, are not prima facie established from the material collected by the investigating agency as there is no evidence on the record that the deceased Yogeshwari Devi was subjected to cruelty or harassment by any of the petitioners soon before her death and that such cruelty and harassment was in connection with any demand for dowry. Learned counsel placed reliance on Rajendra Singh v. State (1), Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. The State of Punjab (2), and Bhawani Singh v. State & Anr. (3).

(3). On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, vehemently opposed the bail applications. It was contended that the matter is under investigation and the accused petitioners should not be released on bail or anticipatory bail keeping in view the magnitude and seriousness of the matter. It was contended by them that there is overwhelming evidence on the record that after the marriage, the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty in connection with demand for dowry. Inspite of the fact that the parents of the deceased had spent huge amount in the marriage of the deceased, the demand of a colour television, scooter and cash was being consistently raised by the husband and the mother-in-law as well as other relatives of her husband which compelled her to commit suicide. She was not allowed even to visit her parents house till the demand of dowry was fulfilled by her parents. Learned Public Prosecutor further contended that the police has also seized a diary containing writing of the deceased and a perusal of the same would show that she was subjected to serious harassment and cruelty and her life was made miserable by her in-laws. Reliance in this connection is placed on Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (4).

(4). I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions and I also minutely went through the case diary.

(5). It is not disputed that the marriage of the deceased Yogeshwari Devi with the petitioner Yogesh Prakash had taken place on May 27, 1993 and within nine months of her marriage she met with her death under abnormal circumstances. It may be true that she might have committed suicide by hanging on a ceiling fan. However, from this .fact it cannot be said that the offence of dowry death under S. 304B, IPC is not made out against the accused persons. Sec. 304B, IPC defines Dowry Death and punishment for the same. It reads as under: —

"304-B. Dowry death - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, dowry shall have the same meaning as in Sec. 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961

Click Here to Read the rest of this document