- (1.) POONAM Srivastava, J. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri D. S. Bohra learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri D. N. Wali, learned Counsel appearing for the first informant and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) COUNTER-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the first informant and rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant are taken on record. The applicant is husband. According to the First Information Report, marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized on 3-9-2000. Allegation of constant demand of dowry is evident from the report. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 26-5-2005 when the applicant and his family members poured kerosene oil and set the deceased ablaze. The neighbours brought her to the hospital and she was referred to Safdarganj Hospital New Delhi, where she expired on the next day. Submission on behalf of the applicant is that injury report shows that she was taken to the hospital by the husband, which is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. Admission in the Safdarganj Hospital New Delhi, shows that she was brought by one Rakesh Chhabara at 11. 00 p. m. , who was neighbour. Sri Trivedi has emphatically argued that the First Information Report was registered at 11. 30 p. m. where it is mentioned that the complainant's sister (deceased) was referred to Safdarganj Hospital whereas medical certificate of the hospital shows that she was admitted at 11. 00 p. m. on 26-5-2005 meaning thereby at the time when the F. I. R. was registered, she was in the hospital. However, all these arguments have been disputed by the Counsel appearing for the complainant. He stated that the applicant married the deceased concealing the fact that he was previously married and divorced. Theory of suicide propagated by Sri Trivedi has also been disputed by Sri Wali as she had a child aged about two years and no mother can leave her child to be orphan. It is also disputed that the deceased was taken to the hospital by the husband. In fact, neighbour has informed the police, therefore, the police was present at the time when Rakesh Chhabara got Smt. Komal admitted in Safdarganj Hospital New Delhi.
(3.) AFTER hearing Counsel for the respective parties at length and going through the affidavits filed on behalf of the applicant and complainant, it is apparent that the wife met an unnatural death within the period of seven years of marriage. Demand of dowry is also clear from the F. I. R. Argument is that presumption as provided in Section 113-B of Evidence Act will not be attracted for the reason that unless and until demand of dowry is established, it will be a case of Section 113-A only. This can be decided only after evidence is recorded during the trial. In the circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is rejected at this stage.;