JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.438 dated 12.09.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 304-B, 406 and 498-A of IPC at Police Station Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.

2. The FIR in question (as stated in the petition) reads as under:-

"Application for taking legal action against accused: 1. Deepak Kumar son of Mahesh Kumar, 2. Mahesh Kumar son of Khazana Jogi, 3. Raja wife Mahesh Kumar 4. Rahul son of Mahesh Kumar resident of village Hathira police station Kurukshetra 5. Manju w/o unknown, daughter of Mahesh Kumar Jogi. 6. Meena wife of unknown daughter of Mahesh Kumar 7. Neelam wife of unknown daughter of Mahesh Kumar.

Sir,

The applicant is making following request that:--

7. That yesterday, on dated 11.09.2023 at around 8 o'clock, the applicant received a phone call on the applicant's phone No.9991410679 from phone No.9306153200 of accused No.1 that we all have finished your sister. You have not fulfilled even a single demand of dowry. Now, come and take away your sister's dead body. The above-mentioned accused have killed the applicant's sister for dowry. It is requested to sir that keeping in view the above facts, strictest legal action should be taken against all the accused and the applicant should be given justice for the death of his sister. Sir, I would be obliged. Applicant-Sd-Ajay Kumar son of Ashok Kumar resident of village Singpura, police station K.U.K. District Kurukshetra. Mobile No. 99914- 10679."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 12.09.2023. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence under Section 304-B of IPC has been invoked without any sufficient proof available on record in this regard, as no complaint was ever made by the victim or her family before her death and hence the case under Section 304-B of IPC is not made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the complainant-side has only resorted to oral allegations to substantiate their case; the petitioner (herein) is the father-in-law of the deceased and there are no specific allegations levelled against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is no evidence, much less substantial evidence, brought on record by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioner. It has been further submitted that one of the co-accused (petitioner's wife) was granted the concession of bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 03.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) and the case of the petitioner stands at same footing as that of the co-accused (petitioner's wife) who was granted bail vide abovesaid order. Therefore, the petitioner deserves the concession of bail on the grounds of parity also. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. It is pertinent to note herein that the petition in hand is the second regular bail petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner. The first petition for grant of regular bail by the petitioner (herein) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.05.2024 wherein the following order was passed:

"1. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition.

2. Dismissed as withdrawn.

3. The concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of certified copy of this order.

4. Since the main case has been decided, pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed off."

7. The petitioner w