Judgment:
S.K. Mahajan, J.
(1) On 9th May, 1992 Smt.Viresh @ Rajeshwari was married to Jaiveer @ Raju according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and she was found dead in her matrimonial home on 5th December, 1993 due to asphyxia resulting from hanging. On the statement of the mother of the deceased, case Fir No.493/93 under sections 498-A/304B/406 Indian Penal Code was registered with Ps Gokul Puri.
(2) Since 5th December, 1993 they are in custody. By this order I am disposing of the bail application of the husband of the deceased being Crl.M.(M).1207/96 and that of Shyam Lal and Smt.Har Pyari, the parents of Jaiveer being Crl.M.(M).358/95 since they arise out of the same incident.
(3) Fir was registered on the statement of the mother of the deceased recorded before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate. It was stated by her that she was informed by her daughter that her husband Jaiveer used to beat her and used to demand motor cycle and used to say that her father had not given anything in dowry. He used to taunt her as to where the entire income of her father had gone which he had earned from the army. She further stated that on 4th December, 1993 she had gone to the house of her daughter in Mukand Vihar because her daughter had written a letter to her that she was very disturbed and she should be taken back from her matrimonial home. Jaiveer met her in the matrimonial home of her daughter, however, he refused to send her daughter and on the next day she received the information that her daughter had died in her matrimonial home and she suspected that in the death of her daughter her father-in-law, mother-in-law, her husband, her brother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother of her husband were involved because they used to beat her daughter and all these persons had killed her daughter by strangulation.
(4) As per the report of the Crime Branch prepared at the spot, a suicide note was found, however, the same has not been produced. The letter which is alleged to have been written by the deceased to her mother a day prior to her death has also not been produced. My attention has been drawn to photocopy of a writing which has been marked as Annexure-B in the petition of Jaiveer and the same reads as under :-
'VIRESH,I Rajeshwari do not want to live here. You come and take me along. Either you or any of the brother may come, I want resignation (Istifa). Either take from Panchayat or from Court. If you don't come I will leave the house and go away then don't tell that you have been defamed. Rajeshwari'
(5) The note which finds a mention in the Crime Team report and which was directed to be sent to Cfsl with admitted writing of the deceased, has admittedly not been sent to CFSL. During the course of arguments, I have been informed that this note which has been mentioned in the Crime Team report is the same about which a reference has been made by the mother of the decease being the letter received by her a day prior to the date of incident.
(6) It is not disputed that prior to the date of death, no complaint was at any time made by either the deceased or by her parents with the police. On the other hand, there is a Dd entry of a complaint which is alleged to have been made by the deceased against her own parents on 10th January, 1993 wherein she had alleged that her parents had been unnecessarily interfering in her affairs with her in-laws. However, at the moment for purposes of deciding these applications, I am not placing any reliance upon this Dd entry. It is the case of the petitioners that they had been falsely implicated in the case in collusion with the parents of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased was not happy with her parents on account of their interference by them in her matrimonial affairs and the allegations of the demand of dowry and beating have been made only after the death of the deceased and the same were not made at any time prior to the time of death. The story of demand of dowry, according to the petitioners, is clearly an afterthought and, thereforee, according to them no case has been made out against the petitioners under Section 304-B IPC.
(7) Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that definite allegations have been made against the petitioners by the mother of the deceased in her statement before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and even writing marked as Annexure-B along with the petition shows that the deceased was not happy in her matrimonial home and wanted to be taken away from them.
(8) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective arguments of the parties. It is an admitted case that the alleged writing has not been sent to Cfsl for purposes of comparison with the admitted writing of the deceased. Though, it is stated by the father of the deceased that it was in the handwriting of the deceased, however, even in that note allegations against the petitioners are not such that they should continue to remain in custody during the entire trial. No Explanationn has been given as to why the said note was not sent to Cfsl for purposes of comparison with the admitted writing of the deceased. There arc no complaints recorded with the police about the petitioners having harassed the deceased or having demanded dowry, prior to the time of death.
(9) For the foregoing reasons and taking into account the fact that the petitioners are in custody for the last about three years and without in any manner commenting upon the merits of the case, I direct the petitioners to be admitted to bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000.00 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
(10) Petitions stands disposed of.