JUDGEMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. The instant application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed on behalf of applicant seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR bearing no. 1169/2023, registered at Police Station Burari, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

2. Issue notice. Mr. Satish Kumar, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant who had stated that her daughter had died on the intervening night of 23- 24.09.2023 due to demands of dowry and pressure created by her husband and in-laws. It was further stated that the information of complainant’s daughter being hanged was informed to him by his son-in-law on the night of 23-24.09.2023 at 1:00 AM. When the complainant had reached the house of the accused, the husband of the deceased and the police were present on the spot and it was told to the complainant that his daughter had been taken to Burari Hospital, Delhi. The complainant had stated that the marriage between his daughter and accused Hardesh Kumar was solemnized on 08.02.2017 and complainant had given a car in dowry. It was stated that the in- laws of the deceased used to make demands of a car and Rs. 10 lakhs but the father of the deceased was only able to provide a car in dowry, due to which the deceased used to be taunted by her in-laws.

The complainant had further stated that his daughter was not happy with the marriage and used to visit her maternal house after being tortured by her in-laws. It was also stated that the deceased was often tortured on account of her giving birth to a girl child and even the child was taunted time and again by the father-in-law of the deceased. It was stated by the complainant that he had given a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs for fulfilling the demand raised by his son-in-law, which was made to buy a flat. It was stated that on the night of the incident, the deceased had called her mother and had told her while crying that her in-laws would soon kill her. The complainant had received the information of the incident on the same day at night.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the applicant has no role in the alleged suicide of the deceased. It is further argued that no demand for dowry was made by the applicant or his family members.

It is also argued that no date or time of demand has been given by the complainant. It is argued that no complaint has been filed by the deceased on any previous occasion, which points out the falsity of allegations as leveled by the complainant. It is argued that the accused and the deceased had been staying happily together for approximately seven years and two children were born out of the wedlock. It is argued that the accused and his family members have never raised a demand for a third child but it was the parents and bhabhi of the deceased who were pushing the deceased and accused to have a male child. It is further argued that the allegation of demand of Rs. 2 lakhs from the complainant is false as no flat can be purchased in Delhi for such a meager amount and the applicant had never made such a demand. It is argued that in the past seven years of marriage, not a single incident of cruelty or demand for dowry was reported by the deceased or her parents. It is further argued that no document supporting the case of the prosecution, which indicates the demand for dowry has been filed by the complainant. It is argued that the applicant has cooperated with the investigation and the chargesheet in the present case has already been filed. Thus, the present applicant be enlarged on regular bail.

5. Learned APP for the State argues that the allegations against the present accused/applicant are serious in nature, and tha