IMPORTANT POINT
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount, and prolonged detention without trial is unjustifiable.

JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.27 dated 24.05.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Section 304B of IPC (Section 498A of IPC added later on) at Police Station Cheema, District Sangrur.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out by the petitioner in the present petition) is as follows:

“Copy of the statement, “Statement of (Ed. omitted) . Stated that I am resident of the aforesaid address and I do agriculture farming. We are four sister brother. My sister Sandeep Kaur’s marriage was solemnized on 29-11-2022 with (Ed. omitted) We had spent total around Rs. 60 lakhs on the marriage of my sister. My sister Sandeep Kaur had several times shared with us that my in-laws family taunts me in the name of dowry and about work and harasses me. In which connection we taking along our relatives had several times gone to Village Sheron and had been making understand the girl’s in-laws family for not harassing her. My sister (Ed. omitted) was made to do all types of work intentionally, forcibly by her mother in law (Ed. omitted). My sister’s chichi sas (Ed. omitted) had been harassing her by saying that our daughter in law (Ed. omitted) has brought dowry in much excess than you and also does work more than you. Day before yesterday, on 22-05 2023, Dilpreet Singh’s maasi (Ed. omitted) had said to my sister Sandeep Kaur that you are servant in this house, you will have to do all the work and will have to bring more dowry. Yesterday, on 25.05.2023, my sister (Ed. omitted), on being upset from her inlaws family, had called us. When we had reached the spot in Village Sheron then (Ed. omitted) was also present there and was taunting to my sister (Ed. omitted) that you will have to do each work here and will have to bring more dowry also, whom we had again made understand for not harassing (Ed. omitted) and I had asked the in-laws family to take along my sister but they had not sent my sister with us. Then all of us had returned back to our Village Ratolan. At around 9:30 P.M. (Ed. omitted), who is my sister’s vichola, had called up on phone that your sister (Ed. omitted) has died and come to Vinayak Hospital. When we had reached Sunam then my sister’s in-laws family had said that (Ed. omitted) is admitted in Chandigarh Heart Care Centre, Sangrur. When we had reached there then we came to know from hospital that (Ed. omitted) had died and her in laws family has taken back her dead body in the vehicle only. When we had reached Village Sheron then my sister’s whole in laws family had absconded from home and my sister’s dead body was lying in vehicle No. PB-13-BP-7400 Make Scorpio vehicle. We had taken my sister (Ed. omitted) dead body in the same Scorpio vehicle to Civil Hospital, Sunam. My sister (Ed. omitted) on being physically and mentally upset from (Ed. omitted) on account of dowry and regarding work has ended up her life by hanging herself from neck. Appropriate legal action may be taken against abovementioned persons. I have got written my statement to you, heard and found to be correct. Sd/ (Ed. omitted).”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 25.05.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an application preferred by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the trial Court on 06.05.2024 wherein after no prosecution witness has turned up for recording of testimony on 27.05.2024 as also on 13.08.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the prosecution/complainant is intentionally trying to delay the trial on account of which the petitioner is suffering further incarceration. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that offence of Section 304B of IPC is not made out against the petitioner in the factual matrix of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner