ORDER

This second application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.669/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Sidhi, for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Earlier application of the applicant was dismissed as with withdrawn vide order dated 12/10/2022.

Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is in jail since 26/08/2022. He submits that present applicant is mother-in-law of deceased. She has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. It is submitted that applicant and her son have never demanded dowry and not harassed the deceased mentally or physically. He submits that false allegations of demand of dowry and harassment have been made by family members of deceased. In the marg intimation which got registered at the instance of brother of the deceased, he did not allege anything against the present applicant and also not disclosed the reason for committing suicide. He further submits that statement of witnesses have also been recorded after a long time i.e on 26/08/2022, in which they concocted a false story of demand of dowry and harassment. As per their statement, on the date of incident there was some fight between the husband and wife and in the same night, she committed suicide. It is alleged that applicant and her son were demanding motorcycle and fridge and were pressuring the deceased for bringing those things from her parents. He submits that from the postmortem report it is clear that there is no sign of any injury over the body of the deceased. He further submits that at the time of incident present applicant was not residing with the deceased. She is aged about 52 years and is in custody since 26/08/2022. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

Per contra, counsel for State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that merely because in the marg intimation nothing has been disclosed by the brother of the deceased it does not mean that the statement of witnesses could be discarded. He submits that it is not required to disclose each and every fact in the marg intimation. It is only an intimation to the police about the incident and that has been done. He further submits that statement of brother of deceased later on was recorded, in which he has stated against the present applicant and also against the husband of deceased saying that they have been asking dowry and harassing the deceased after marriage. He submits that the allegation is only against the present applicant and her son (husband of deceased) but not against any of the family member. It clearly indicates that there is no intention of the family members of the deceased to implicate anybody falsely.

He further submits that considering the nature of crime, material available on record and period of custody, it is not proper at this stage to release the applicant on bail.

I have heard counsel for parties and perused the case diary.

Perusal of case diary reveals that before postmortem of body of the deceased some injuries were noticed on the wrist, although in the postmortem nothing has been said. The witnesses in their statement have made specific allegations and stated that on the date of incident there was fight between husband and wife. As per the case of prosecution, husband and wife both were sleeping in one room, wherein deceased has committed suicide and the husband was the only person along with the deceased at the time of incident.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature of crime and the material available against the applicant, this Court does not deem it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected .

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE sushma