1. As alleged by the prosecution, deceased Monika Chowdhary is stated to have consumed poisonous substance as a result of which she died on 28.10.2009. The deceased was married with accused Sandeep Kumar son of Jagdish Kumar on 03.03.2009. Initial period of marriage is stated to have passed off without any complaint regarding demand of dowry by the accused. The harassment is stated to have started thereafter by the accused persons in the nature of demand of dowry. It is contended that the deceased was harassed and physically tortured by the accused persons.

2. A demand of Rs. 1.00 lac was made after three months of marriage out of which Rs.50,000/- is stated to have been paid by the father of the deceased with the promise to make balance payment and car after sometime. The deceased was dropped at her father’s house on 19.10.2009 by accused Randeep Chowdhary. The father and brother of the deceased dropped her back at her-in-laws house with the promise to make other payment. She is stated to have consumed poisonous substance on the intervening night of 27/28th October, 2009 and died on 28.10.2009.

3. The police on receipt of this information proceeded under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and on inquest report prepared sated that the deceased had died by consuming poisonous substance. After verification and inquiry under Section 175 Cr.P.C., FIR No.111/2009 came to be registered on 12.12.2009 in Police Station, Vijaypur against the accused persons, consequently, accused came to be arrested and while tracking the role of accused persons, investigation reveals the following things:-

(a) That after three months of marriage demand for dowry was made by the accused persons and on failure to meet the demand, she was subjected to cruelty;

(b) That the demand of Rs.1.00 lac was made out of which Rs.50,000/- was paid and remaining amount was promised to be paid after some times;

(c) That no medical assistant was provided to the deceased from 11.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m;

(d) That parents of the accused were informed about the death of the deceased Monika Chowdhary at 4.30 p.m on 28.10.2009;

(e) That accused Randeep Chowdhary brother-in-law was seen getting poisonous material prior to the occurrence.

4. The accused petitioners in the face of the aforesaid allegations, moved an application for grant of bail before the Ist Additional Munisff, Samba and on refusal of the bail by the said Court vide its order dated 08.01.2010, the accused-petitioners filed fresh bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Samba, who also vide its order dated 18.01.2010 rejected the bail application of the accused-petitioners on the following grounds:-

(a) That the accused did not inform the complainant about the deceased having consumed the poisonous substance;

(b) That the conduct of the accused-petitioners in not getting immediate treatment for the deceased from the competent doctor hints towards their complicity;

(c) That only on the intervention of the Dy. Commissioner the Board was got constituted for conducting the post-mortem of the deceased reveals the influence of accused in the area; and

(d) That the accused-petitioners are likely to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The principles which generally govern the grant of bail are relatable to following things:-

(i) Seriousness of the allegations, severity of punishment, the character of evidence on which the charge is supposed to be sustained, tampering and intimidating the witnesses and chances of running away from the trial.

(ii) False implication of the accused, allegations leveled not believable and the wrecking vengeance for political or business reasons.

7. The above principles are in paramateria with the power of the court under Section 498 Cr.P.C. It is also to be noted that at the stage of granting bail, the court can only go into the question as to whether a prima-facie case is established against the accused and cannot go into the ev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document