Vijay Kumar Verma, J. - (1.) THE applicant Manoj Yadav, who is the husband of Smt. Archana @ Pinki (hereinafter to be referred as deceased) has sought bail by means of this application under section 439 Cr.P.C. in case crime no. 695 of 2008 under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Indrapuram, Ghaziabad.
(2.) THE marriage of Smt. Archana was solemnized with applicant on 07.12.2005. She committed suicide in the intervening night of 10/11-05-2008 in the house of her father, situated in Shivalik Tower, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. An FIR was lodged by Roop Singh, father of the deceased, on 11.05.2008 at P.S. Indrapuram, Ghaziabad, where a case under section 306 IPC was registered at crime no. 695 of 2008 against Manoj (applicant herein), his mother Smt. Prema Kumari and his younger brother Anuj Yadav. THE allegations made in the FIR, in brief, are that the accused persons were causing harassment of deceased making demand of car and cash and they also caused marpeet with her on 06.08.2006. It is also alleged in the FIR that when the demand of dowry of accused persons was not fulfilled, they ousted the deceased from their house, due to which she came to her maika and since she was being continuously tortured by the accused persons making demand of dowry, hence she committed suicide by hanging in the intervening night of 10/11-05-2008. After investigation, chargesheet under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and D. P. Act has been filed. I have heard lengthy arguments of Sr. G. S. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Azat Shatru Pandey Advocate, appearing for the applicant, Sri G. S. Hajela and Sri Nitin Gupta, Advocates 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 in her maika, where she was living for more than two months, hence the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC would not be made out in this case, because she was not subjected to cruelty for or in connection with dowry soon before death, which is essential element of section 304- B IPC. The contention of Mr. Chaturvedi was that since the deceased was living away from the accused persons for more than two months as per FIR version itself, hence there was no occasion for the accused persons for subjecting the deceased to cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry soon before death.
(3.) NEXT submission made by learned counsel for the applicant was that the marriage of deceased with the applicant had taken place in December, 2005, whereas the deceased committed suicide in May 2008, hence the allegation of demanding car and cash during this long period is false and concocted and hence on this ground also, the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC would not be made out, as for attracting section 304-B IPC, the harassment of the deceased woman must be for or in connection with the demand of dowry and if in any case, she is tortured or harassed for some other reason and she commits suicide due to that reason, then in such case, the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC would not be made out. It was also submitted by learned counsel that marpeet was caused with the applicant Manoj Yadav on 30.03.2007 by Rahul, brother of the deceased and two unknown persons and after commission of suicide by deceased, false story of causing harassment of the deceased for dowry has been concocted. For this submission, attention of the Court was drawn towards the applications (Annexure-3, Annexure- 5 and Paper No. 28 to 32) and injury report of applicant (Annexure 4).;