Vijay Kumar Verma, J. - (1.) PRAYER for bail in this bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. has been made on behalf of the applicant Adarsh @ Kaptan s/o Sobran Singh, in case crime No. 554 of 2007 (Case No. 43 of 2008), under sections 498A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sadar, District Agra.
(2.) THE applicant is the husband of Smt. Geeta, who died due to unnatural death within seven years of her marriage with applicant. An FIR was lodged by Girraj Singh, father of the deceased, on 02.08.2007 at P.S. Sadar, Agra, where a case under section 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act was registered at crime No. 554 of 2007 against Sobran Singh (Father-in-law), Sheela (Mother-in-law), Adarsh @ Kaptan (applicant herein), Teetu (Devar) Chandra Kanta (Nanad) and Rajani (Devarani). THE allegations made in the FIR, in brief, are that after marriage of deceased with accused Adarsh @ Kaptan in June 2002, the accused persons began to cause her harassment making demand of dowry. It is further alleged that with a view to keep his daughter happy, the complainant gave a she-buffalo to the accused persons, but after one year, they demanded Rupees one lac for starting medicine shop and when their demand was not fulfilled, they committed the murder of deceased on 02.08.2007. I have heard lengthy arguments of Sri Ali Hasan and Sri K.S. Chahar, Advocates, appearing for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar, Advocate representing the complainant and AGA for the State. The first and foremost submission made by learned counsel for the applicant was that the deceased had committed suicide, but in the post-mortem report, the doctor has wrongly mentioned the cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. The contention of the learned counsel in this context was that hyoid bone of the deceased was found intact at the time of post mortem examination, which shows that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging and it was not a case of strangulation as noted in the post mortem report (annexure-2). It was also submitted by learned counsel in this context, that Ram Chandra Nagar Khatta colony was established by the grand father of the applicant, in which sale deed of one plot was executed in the name of complainant and his son Uttam, but entire money was not paid by them and when on the day of incident, demand to pay the rest money of sale deed was made by the deceased from her brother and maternal cousin, they refused to pay the amount and hence being disturbed, the deceased committed suicide by hanging.
(3.) PLACING reliance on Appasaheb and another vs. State of Maharashtra2007 (57)ACC 544, it was further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that making demand of any money for the purpose of business does not come in the category of dowry under Dowry Prohibition Act and hence, the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC would not be made out in present case, because rupees one lac are said to have been demanded by the accused for opening the medical shop. Next submission made by learned counsel for the applicant was that trial of the applicant has been held up due to the order dated 31.07.2008 passed by this Court in Transfer Application No. 545 of 2008 (Vikash vs. Sobran and others) and hence, on this ground, the applicant deserves to be released on bail, because he can not be confined in jail for indefinite period without trial. The contention of the learned counsel was that due to stay order granted by this court in transfer application, the trial of the accused cannot proceed further and since the disposal of transfer application would take long time due to heavy pendency of fresh cases in this High Court, hence the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 22.08.2007, deserves to be released on bail on this ground. It was also submitted by learned counsel that on the basis of long detention period in jail also, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, because due to delay in trial, his fundamental right of speedy trial envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution is being violated.;