IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 11.12.2025 Pronounced on: 15.12.2025 Uploaded on: 15.12.2025 SATYA VIR SINGH …Petitioner V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, DAG Haryana.

****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 526 dated 20.08.2024 under Sections 80, 85, 61(2), 316(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station City Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad. This is the first petition for regular bail.

Complaint Radha Charan alleged that his daughter Pooja @ Asha was married with Ankush five years ago and at the time of marriage he spent Rs.7,00,000/-. After some time Satya Vir and Ankush asked Pooja to bring Rs.2,00,000/- from her father. They left her in his house. Pooja told him that her husband and father-in-law would take her back only when she had the money. As he could not arrange the money demanded, he filed a dowry case against the in-law of his daughter. The matter was however patched up and after visit of Satya Vir to his house, Pooja was sent back. She delivered two kids. Again, they started harassing his daughter. On 14.08.2024, Pooja telephonically informed him that she was being harassed. He called his daughter’s father-in-law and asked him not to harass her, on which he responded “should we worship your daughter Pooja” and proclaimed that they would act as they liked. Thereafter, he disconnected the call. On 15.08.2024, at about 8.00 PM, he received his daughter’s call saying that they would kill her and her phone was disconnected. He kept calling her but she did not receive the call. At about 5.00 PM, he received a telephone call that his daughter was unwell, wherepon he reached Ballabgarh and was informed that Satveer (father-in-law), Mithlesh (mother-in- law), Neelam (sister-in-law), Ankush (husband), Manoj (brother-in-law) and Sweety (brother-in-law’s wife) in furtherance of their common intention had thrown his daughter from the third floor, on which account she suffered injuries and was admitted in Sarvodaya Hospital. When they reached the hospital, Pooja was not stable. She later died on 20.08.2024 at 7.00 AM.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was in judicial custody w.e.f. 21.08.2024 i.e. for the last 01 year 03 months. He further argued that there was no allegation that deceased was harassed for dowry soon before her death. Therefore, essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 304-B IPC were missing. Death of Pooja was an accident and entire evidence collected by the prosecution was hear say. Therefore, petitioner deserved to be enlarged on bail.

Learned State counsel assisted by learned Counsel for the complainant submits that a complaint was filed by the deceased against the petitioner and other family members in the Court at Shahbad alleging demand for dowry in 2020. There were specific and concrete allegations of harassment and demand for dowry against the petitioner who was the father-in-law of deceased and in view of severity of allegations, he did not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Petitioner is alleged to have caused dowry death of his daughter-in-

law Pooja @ Nisha, within five years of the marriage. Allegations against him are serious and specific. Prior to the occurrence also, a complaint was filed by the deceased regarding the alleged demand of dowry. In view of the gravity of charge, the role attributed to the petitioner, the quantum of punishment conviction may entail and all relevant facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, the petition for bail is hereby dismissed.

Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)

Reserved on:11.12.2025 JUDGE Pronounced on: 15.12.2025 Ajay Goswami