SHIV SHANKER,J. - (1.) THIS is second bail application moved on behalf of applicant Kamlesh Kumar son of Chhangoo Lal in Case Crime No. 07 of 2006 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Palari, District Chitrakoot. His first bail application has already been rejected by this Bench vide order dated July 6, 2007 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 26689 of 2006 on merit of the case.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned A.G.A. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in the earlier filed bail application, much discussion has occurred on the issue that the door of the room, where the deceased was found, was locked from outside or inside. As soon as this incident occurred, the matter reported to the police of P.S. Pahari, District Chitrakoot by the applicant side. A true copy of G.D. entry No. 20 dated 31.01.2006 of P.S.. Pahari, District Chitrakoot is on record as Annexure-2. On receiving the information, S.O., Sri K.D. Singh reached at the place of incident and completed the inquest proceeding of the deceased Smt. Chandra Kiran. After completion of the inquest proceeding, he went off and prior to leaving the place of incident, he locked the room from outside. In this regard, a true copy of the G.D. entry dated 01.02.2006 of P .S. Pahari, District Chitrakoot is on record as Annexure-3.
(3.) IT is further contended when 5.0., Sri K.O. Singh left the place, then this place of incident was again visited by C.O., who made local inspection of the area, prepared site plan after opening the room and handed over the keys to land lord. A true copy of G.O. entry No. 25 dated 02.02.2006 is also on record as Annexure -4. Therefore, it is crystal clear that when the C.O. reached at the place of incident for preparing site plan, he found the room locked outside, which was locked by S.O., Sri D.K. Singh himself and none else outside of the room. Therefore, theory of locking door of room of deceased, where the deceased was burning from outside at the time when incident occurred, is false. The lock found by C.O. was actually place there by the S.O. and not by the applicant or any inlaws. It is further contended that the applicant could not get copies of these general diary entries at the time of hearing of first bail application, hence, he could not present the same here before this Court at the time of consideration of first bail application of the applicant. Therefore, no case of dowry death is made out and applicant's bail application is liable to be allowed.;