MOHD.YAMIN, J. - (1.) THESE two petitions have been preferred under section 438 Cr.P.C. Petition No. 1221/97 being petition on behalf of husband while petition No. 1162/97 being petition on behalf of other relations of the husband.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case diary. The case of the prosecution is that on 8.5.1997 Mamta consumed pesticide at about 8.00 a.m. She died on the same day. Proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C. were started and during those proceedings, statement of Mst. Mamta was recorded in hospital of Kapasan. She stated to SHO that she did not have any quarrel with either of the petitioners. On 20.5.1997, Madanlal, who is the father of decased, submitted a written report to the S.P. Chittorgarh alleging that Mamta was married to Devilal 5 or 6 years before the occurrence. The husband as well as other petitioners used to harass Mamta and demanded dowry. They used to beat her. On 8.5.1997 he was not informed about the death of Mamta and it was Bheru Shankar, Patwari, who informed him at about 4.00 p.m. that Mamta had consumed pesticide. It was further alleged that a false case of suicide has been made in connivance with the doctor and the police, while in reality it was dowry death. The police registered a case under sections 498-A and 304 IPC and started investigation.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are being falsely roped in. My attention has been drawn to the statement of Mst. Mamta which was recorded by the SHO in presence of Dr. Goyal in which Mamta stated she and her grand mother-in-law had a quarrel and thereafter Mamta had consumed pesticide. It was her adopted brother Balu who brought her to hospital. She also stated that she was married when she was minor and that her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband did not quarrel with her and that she was married 13 years ago. She further stated that when she consumed the pesticide, none of them was present in the house. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of this statement submitted that no case under section 304-B was made out. He has also submitted an invitation card of marriage of Mamta from which it is disclosed that the marriage of Mamta with petitioner Devilal was performed some time in the month of December, 1985. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no case under section 304-B IPC was made out and hence all the petitioners deserve anticipatory bail.;