The court emphasized that serious allegations of dowry death and harassment justify the denial of bail, highlighting the need for careful consideration of the gravity of charges.

ORDER :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C . (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.167/2024, registered at Police Station Baap, District Phalodi, for offences under Sections 85, 80(2) and 3(5) of BNS.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.

3. As per the prosecution, deceased- Nenu, on 16.09.2024 died in her matrimonial house in unnatural circumstances within three months of her marriage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is the father in-law has been falsely implicated in the present case. There was no occasion for the petitioner to have harassed or humiliated the deceased on account of dowry demand.

5. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR and the challan papers, learned counsel submitted that there are omnibus allegations levelled against the present petitioner and his other family members but apart from the co-accused- Mukesh (husband) only the petitioner has been charge sheeted by the Investigating Agency and no other family member has been charge sheeted.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased appears to have committed suicide owing to her matrimonial discord with the co-accused- Mukesh (husband), however, the family member of the deceased have falsely levelled allegation of dowry demand and dowry death against the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. They submitted that the deceased was married to Mukesh just three months before her unnatural death in her matrimonial home. Right from the date of her marriage, the petitioner and his son were demanding a motorcycle and a golden ring (anguthi). Learned counsel thus urged that there are grave allegations against the petitioner and the co-accused- Mukesh (husband), therefore, he does not deserve to enlarged on bail.

9. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the deceased was married to son of the petitioner- Mukesh just three months before her unnatural death in her matrimonial home. The complainant- Dauram and father of the deceased- Kishnaram in their statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS have levelled specific allegation of she being harassed and humiliated by the petitioner and his son- Mukesh on account of dowry demand. This Court, looking to the nature of allegation levelled against the present petitioner and gravity of the offences allegedly committed by him, is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh bail application after recording the statements of the complainant- Dauram and father of the deceased- Kishnaram before the competent criminal Court. It is expected from the competent criminal Court that the statements of the aforesaid witnesses will be recorded on priority basis.

10. Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C . (483 BNSS) is dismissed.