Ravindra Maithani, J
1. Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.283 of 2024, under Section 304-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar. He has
sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The deceased married to the applicant on 16.12.2017. According to the FIR, the applicant and the co-accused would harass the deceased for and in
connection with the demand of dowry. On 29.05.2024, the deceased telephoned her cousin Wasif to inform that the applicant and his family members
are demanding Rs. 1 Lakh from her. She again telephoned Wasif and told that the applicant and his family members should be given Rs. 1 Lakh, or
else they would kill her. The same night, the informant was told that the deceased had died.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is not a case of dowry death; the deceased had attempted to commit suicide in the past, as
has been stated by the independent witnesses; the informant, in his statement given to the Investigating Officer, has not revealed that any dowry
demand was ever made from him; the informant has stated that the deceased had telephoned her cousin Wasif that the applicant is demanding money,
but, it is argued that Wasif, in his statement given to the Investigating Officer, has stated that the applicant never demanded money. According to
Wasif, the deceased had told it to her on 29.05.2024 that her mother-in-law is fighting with her and demanding Rs. 1 Lakh.
5. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that the in the post-mortem, some injuries were detected on the person of the deceased; there is
presumption of dowry death in the instant case.
6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the death took place within seven years of marriage.
7. 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.
8. In order to attract the presumption of dowry death, first and foremost, it has to be established that soon before the death, there was a demand of
dowry. In fact, in the FIR, it is stated that dowry was demanded, but the informant has not stated that any demand of dowry was made from him. He
referred to the statement of Wasif, but Wasif has also not stated that he was ever told by the deceased that the applicant has demanded dowry from
her. In the post mortem, the cause of death is ante mortem handing.
9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
10. The bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
