Shiv Shanker - (1.) -This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Burhan s/o Imran in Case Crime No. 85 of 2006, under Section 304B, I.P.C. P.S. Behat, district Saharanpur.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that his first bail application has been rejected in absence of learned counsel for the applicant. No order has been passed regarding merit of the case. It is further contended that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased Smt. Shaeena on 19.5.2006 but unfortunate for the applicant that she was suffering from highest depression and imbalance mental situation, because of the fact, she had been borned child of earlier wife of complainant/her father, who subsequently brought her step mother and has borned out 16 children, out of which 10 are female child/girls. In such circumstances, parents of the deceased could not fulfil the demand of dowry as the condition of her parents was also poor having 16 children. False allegation made against him. It is further contended that he had gone to nearest town Behat and was involved in the daily activities, in the field outside the house and Smt. Shaeena because of her mental sickness having found her alone in the house, committed suicide by hanging in the house of the applicant and as soon as nearest neighbours and other villagers saw her dead and then the message was communicated to the applicant and his other family members immediately. Thereafter, a telephonic message was also sent to the parents of the deceased. It is further contended that parents of the deceased was present at the time of preparing inquest report, which was conducted by the Naib Tehsildar Behat Sri Mangeram under the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Behat. No complaint was made regarding the case of dowry death.
(3.) IT is further contended that she committed suicide. Complainant started blackmailing the accused applicant and his family maliciously, and demanding Rs. 1 lakh with the collusion of police authority, and on being failure on the part of the accused applicant, the informant got lodged the F.I.R. anti-timed, manipulating/making necessary correction/modification over-writing of the case crime number. No case under Section 304B, I.P.C. is made out. It is further contended that the applicant is agricultural labourer living below poverty line. In such circumstances, he could not demand any dowry from the deceased as well as her parents.;