IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the gravity of dowry-related offenses and the need for careful consideration of evidence at the bail stage.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Applicant Smt. Heera Devi is in judicial custody in FIR No.0026 of 2021, under Section 302, 34 and 304-B IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Lohaghat, District Champawat. She has sought her release on bail.

2. This is the second bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No.1832 of 2021, was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.11.2022.

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

4. According to the FIR, the applicant’s son, Kuldeep, and the deceased were married on 10.03.2021, but, after marriage, the deceased was harassed and tortured for and in connection with the demand of dowry. On 05.06.2021, the deceased had spoken to her father at 9:41 PM, and had revealed the story of the demand of dowry and torture. Subsequently, on 06.06.2021, the father of the deceased, who is the informant, received a call that the deceased is unwell. Subsequently, he was informed that the deceased died.

5. It is stated that many witnesses have been examined and the trial is about to complete.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there are great variations in the statement of the witnesses. There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant ever demanded dowry. He would refer to the statement of PW10, the Investigating Officer, who has stated that during investigation, the applicant had told it that on the date of incident, she was in her room in the first floor, when her son, the husband of the deceased, asked her to come at the ground floor and see as to what had happened to the deceased. She enquired from the co-accused Kuldeep, but he did not reveal as to what had happened to the deceased.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant would also refer to the statement of PW3, Suraj Singh Bohra, who happened to be the brother of the deceased, to argue that his statement does not reveal that any demand was ever made by the applicant. Certain portions of his statement have been referred to.

8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that PW1, Rajendra Singh Bohra, the father of the deceased, PW3, Suraj Singh Bohra and other witnesses have stated that the applicant demanded dowry from the deceased and for that reason, she would harass and torture the deceased and finally killed her.

9. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding.

10. Various witnesses have been examined. This Court refrains to make deeper scrutiny at this stage. Fact remains that PW1, Rajendra Singh Bohra, PW2, Suraj Singh Bohra and PW4 Geeta Bohra have stated about the demand of dowry and harassment made by the applicant as well, in their examination in chief.

11. During the course of argument, reference has been made to statement of PW3, Suraj Singh Bohra, recorded during cross-examination. As stated, the Court refrains to make any deeper scrutiny at this stage. It would fall for scrutiny during trial. Admittedly, the applicant and the deceased were staying in the same room. There were injuries on the person of the deceased. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death is due to “asphyxia due to smothering and not due to hanging.” It is a death other than under normal circumstances, just within three months of the marriage of the deceased.

12. Having considered, this Court does not see any reason, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

13. The bail application is rejected.