PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL,J. - (1.) The accused-petitioner has filed this third application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No.334/2014 registered at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Sikar for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC in which after investigation charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for offence under Section 306 IPC. The first application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail was dismissed by this Court on merit vide a reasoned order dated 8.5.2015 after considering the evidence collected during the course of investigation which was placed on record by way of copy of the charge-sheet. The second application was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.7.2016 observing that there is no substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case. The present application has mainly been filed after statements of as many as three prosecution witnesses have been recorded by the trial Court. In support of the application, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following grounds :- (1) Petitioner is in custody since 28.11.2014 i.e. for about two and half years and till now statements of only three prosecution witnesses, out of total 51, have been recorded during trial and the trial is unlikely to be concluded within a reasonable period. It is well settled legal position that accused has a fundamental right of speedy trial and if he is deprived of the same, he is entitled to be released on bail on that account only. (2) Although, after investigation charge-sheet was filed only against the petitioner, husband of deceased, for offence under Section 306 IPC but on an application filed by the complainant under Section 193 Cr.P.C., learned trial Court took cognizance against parents of the petitioner for offence under Section 306 as well as for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and charge for all the aforesaid offences has been framed against all the accused. Benefit of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has already been granted by the trial Court to both the co-accused vide order dated 28.6.2016 and, therefore, petitioner is also entitled to get the same benefit on the principle of parity. It is also to be noted that three of the prosecution witnesses, whose statements have so far been recorded by the trial Court, have also levelled similar allegations against all the three accused and, therefore, in view of this fact also petitioner is now entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. (3) Prosecution itself is not certain what offence in fact has been committed by the petitioner. As already stated, in the FIR allegations of demand of dowry were levelled against the petitioner and other family members and commission of suicide by deceased as demand of dowry could not be fulfilled whereas after investigation from the evidence collected it was found that deceased committed suicide as petitioner, her husband, suspected her character due to extra marital affairs with some person. Charge against the petitioner and co-accused have been framed for offence under Section 306 IPC and in the alternate for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. From the evidence collected during investigation it is revealed that fact about extra marital affair of deceased with some person came into the knowledge of petitioner and it was duly informed to father of the deceased and due to this deceased went into deep depression and as a result thereof she committed suicide for which petitioner cannot be held responsible. (4) There is no definite evidence available on record to show that any of the injury found on the body of deceased was as a result of any beating at the hands of petitioner or any other family member. (5) In the initial version of the incident as narrated in the FIR and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. no specific allegation about demand of dowry was levelled but later on during investigation the family members of deceased improved their version and specific allegation for demand of dowry in the form of a plot and cash were falsely levelled.
(2.) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported by learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there is no substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case after dismissal of previous applications filed by the petitioner. After dismissal of first application petitioner went to Hon'ble Supreme Court for grant of bail by way of Special Leave to Appeal but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 3.8.2015. The second application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court after benefit of bail was granted by the trial Court to co-accused and, therefore, principle of parity is not applicable in the present case more particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner is husband of the deceased. It was also submitted that there is no delay on the part of the prosecution or the complainant party for the conclusion of the trial and, therefore, benefit of bail cannot be granted to petitioner on this account also more particularly in view of the gravity of the offence.
(3.) On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record including the evidence collected during the course of investigation and statements of material prosecution witnesses so far recorded during the course of trial, I do not find any substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case so as to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner.;