The court grants bail based on extended custody and slow trial proceedings, emphasizing insufficient evidence against the petitioner regarding dowry demands and abetment of suicide.

ORDER :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.47 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.72 of 2024 (S.T. No.22 of 2024) registered for offences punishable under Sections 3 04B/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh.

3. As per FIR, it is alleged that informant’s daughter married with the petitioner on 16.06.2019. After a few months, her in-laws started demanding additional dowry and tortured her mentally and physically. During the 2020 lockdown, the financial condition of his son-in-law (the petitioner) deteriorated, leading him to gamble and drink and he began assaulting his wife and children. On 20.02.2023, the petitioner assaulted his wife and demanded Rs.80,000/-, threatening to kill her, if the demand was not met. Informant along with others intervened to pacify the situation. On 21.02.2023 at about 10:00 P.M., informant was informed that his daughter was seriously ill and later on son-in-law’s younger brother informed that his daughter had died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that this is the second regular bail application of the petitioner and earlier his bail application being B.A. No.1761 of 2024 vide order dated 09.07.2024 was rejected on merits by this Court with observation that the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months otherwise the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. It is submitted that thereafter, charge was framed against the petitioner on 16.07.2024 and out of eleven charge-sheet witnesses only four charge-sheet witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. The learned trial court itself has observed in the impugned order that the deceased has committed suicide due to reason that her husband (petitioner) was habitual drunkard and gambler and was not behaving properly with his wife and children. Therefore, petitioner is not involved in abating the commission of suicide by the victim and there is no material showing demand of dowry and consequent torture meted with the deceased due to non-fulfillment of any demand. Therefore, application of Section 304B of the I.P.C. is also unwarranted. The petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 25.11.2023 and undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present during trial of the case as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of bail.

5. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that marriage of deceased was solemnized on 16.06.2019 and during the lockdown period due to COVID–19, the alleged demand of dowry which is Rs.80,000/- was raised by the present petitioner and he always used to assault the deceased in drunken state and also addicted with habit of gambling and one child was also born to death. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve bail and his prayer for bail may be rejected.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation coupled with the materials available against the petitioner and period of custody of the petitioner and particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody for more than one and a half years but trial is going on in a s