- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. The applicant has made a request for bail in Crime No. 329 of 1999 under Sections 298-A, 352, 504 and 506, I. P. C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, P. S. Bhelupur, District Varanasi.
(2.) 1 have heard Sri Gopal S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate and Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri J. S. Sengar, learned Counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA. The marriage of the victim Manisha was solemnised with the ap plicant on 4-2-1999. Manisha is a resident of Varanasi and the applicant is a resident of Surat in Gujarat State. The FIR of the incident was lodged by the father of bribe, Ganesh Prasad Lohiya, in which he men tioned that he spent Rs. 35 Lakhs in the marriage. However, the applicant and other accused were not satisfied with the dowry given, and tortured the victim Manisha in connection with demand of dowry. It is further contended that a letter was also sent by the elder brother of the applicant for payment of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. That the accused persons further demanded Rs. 10 lakhs towards dowry, regarding which the letter was written by the victim from the house of her in-laws in Surat to the complainant. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that there is no allegation of physical torture. That the entire allegations are regarding mental torture, it has been alleged that the victim was being misbehaved and was being abused for insufficient dowry. The applicant is in jail for about two months. The offences are triable by the Magistrate and the case is yet to be decided. The applicant is, therefore, entitled to bail.
(3.) AS against this, Sri J. S. Sengar has vehemently argued that the victim belongs to very affluent family, in which she en joyed all the comforts of the life like a princess. A sum of Rs. 35 lakhs were spent on her marriage and even then she is not happy in her matrimonial home and is being tortured. The learned Counsel for the com plainant has pointed out the letter written by Vimal Kumar, real elder brother of the applicant, on 18-3-1999, in which he men tioned that Rs. 4 lakhs were given towards expenses of the place of stay, but actually the expenses was Rs. 5,50,000/ -. He has asked the complainant to send Rs. 1,50,000/- by bank draft immediately. It is contended that the subsequent letter and the statement show that the amount was not towards the expenses and it was only a device of demand of dowry of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. It is further contended that the victim while at the house of her in-laws at Surat, wrote a letter to her parents regard ing misbehaviour and demand of Rs. 10 lakhs towards dowry. It is contended that these letters were written on Inland Let ters and were posted from Surat and were delivered to the complainant at Varanasi as is apparent from the postal seal. The same have also been got compared by the Expert and it is contended that the report of Expert show that the letters were posted from Surat and were delivered to the complainant at Varanasi. As against this, the contention of the learned Coun sel for the applicant is that the victim is living with the complainant and these let ters could be prepared at any time in back dates. That it is not difficult to get the seals of Surat affixed on the letters to create evidence. It is contended that the genuine ness of the letters to be decided in the trial and at this stage it cannot be said at the demand of Rs. 10 lakhs was made. There is no letter of the applicant or any other members of his family regarding demand of Rs. 10 lakhs towards dowry. It is con tended that Rs. 1,50,000/- were demanded by the elder brother of the applicant towards the expenses and not towards dowry.;