Anticipatory bail rejected due to lack of genuine effort to comply with earlier court orders and evidence of avoiding arrest.

1. This is second bail application filed under S.438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the Applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 173/2014, registered at Police Station - City Kotwali, Kharsiya, for the offence punishable under S.304B read with 34 of IPC

2. The first bail application vide M.Cr.C. (A) No. 812/2014 was rejected by this Court on 15.09.2014. It is trite at this juncture to reproduce the relevant portion of the earlier order passed in the Application for grant of anticipatory bail:
'Counsel for the applicants prays for withdrawal of this anticipatory bail application with liberty to surrender the applicants before the trial Court and to move an appropriate application for regular bail. She further prays that the Court below may also be directed to consider the regular bail application for the applicants on the same day. Accordingly, the instant M.Cr.C.(A) is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicants that in case, the applicants move an application before the trial Court for regular bail, the same, if possible , be considered on the same day.'

3. A brief fact in the present case is that deceased in the instant case - Anita Darshan was married to one Chandrahas Darshan on 02.06.2013. Barely 10 months later the deceased - Anita is said to have died under suspicious circumstances on 27.04.2014. Merg was intimated and on the basis of which F.I.R. was also lodged as Crime No. 173/2014 at Police Station - Kharsia. The charge sheet was filed against the Applicant and other co - accused under S.304 (B) read with 34 of Cr.P.C. The charge sheet in the instant case was filed before the Court below showing the present Applicant and two other persons as absconding and trial was initiated against the Chandrahas Darshan the husband of the deceased and Hemlata Darshan - grand mother of the husband.

4. The Trial ultimately resulted in the conviction of both the accused persons and against whom an appeal is also pending i.e. Criminal Appeal no. 957/2015 before this Court where while pending the Appeal the accused persons have been released on bail.

5. The present Applicant subsequently meanwhile had filed the application for anticipatory bail which he had voluntarily withdrawn with liberty to surrender before the trial Court with remedy to seek regular bail vide order dated 15.09.2014.

6. However, almost 2 years have elapsed the present Applicant did not think it proper to surrender before the trial Court and seek remedy of grant of regular bail. He has now filed the present second bail application for grant of anticipatory bail. The contention of the Counsel for the Applicant is that on merit she has a very good case in as much as there is no any evidence what so ever for the sake of argument during the trial of accused persons who have been prosecuted - Chandrahas and Hemlata on the basis of which the offence under S.304B of the IPC can not be attributed against the present Applicant and therefore he deserves to be released on anticipatory bail.

7. She further submits that the ingredients for making out the offence under S.304 B of IPC would also invoking offence under S.498(A) of IPC is not made out in the evidences which have been recorded during trial of the accused persons. The demand of dowry has not been established by the prosecution witnesses and in the absence of demand of dowry the case itself would not be made out against the present Applicant.

8. She relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Bajaj Vs. State of M.P. , 2001 (9) SCC 417 : AIR 2001 SC 3020 in this regard sh