Full Judgment
M.R. Verma, J.
1. By this application, the petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') has prayed for grant of bail to him in case FIR No. 21/2002 dated 13.1.2002 under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306, I.P.C, registered at Police Station, Sunder Nagar.
2. The case of the prosecution against the accused, in brief, is that accused used to maltreat, harass and torture his wife Smt. Champa @ Drompti who was married to aim in December, 2000 by saying that he brother had given birth to two girls and that her Khandan gives birth to girls and as a consequence, fed up with such treatment, said Champa Devi took some poisonous substance on 13.1.2002 and, thus, committed suicide. On 17.1.2002, during investigation, it was also been found that the accused had been demanding dowry and wants to marry some other woman, which also led to the consequences of the maltreatment meted out to the deceased.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Law Officer for the State and also gone through the investigation records and the police report.
4. There is no dispute that the accused is presently in judicialy custody and the charge-sheet against him had been presented to the concerned Court on 8.4.2002. In these circumstances, the accused is no more required by the police for the purpose of investigation or interrogation. The offences alleged to have been committed by the accused, though are of the grave nature, however, in view of the fact that the charge-sheet has already been presented and the charge is yet to be framed against him, it would not be proper for this Court to comment on the material collected by the prosecution against the accused. Suffice to say that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused, though are of grave nature, but mere gravity of the offence is no reason, by itself, to deny bail to the accused.
5. The main purpose of incarceration of the accused during trial in judicial custody is to ensure that the accused faces a trial, that is to say, that he may not abscond with a view to evade the trial and secondly that he does not tamper with the prosecution evidence. In case the aforesaid two purposes i.e. the presence of the accused at the trial and non-tampering with the prosecution evidence can be achieved and are otherwise assured, ordinarily there should be no objection in granting bail to the accused.
6. In the case in hand, this application has been opposed mainly on the ground that the deceased was tortured by demanding dowry from her and she was further tortured for giving birth to a daughter and she had to meet all these agonies within thirteen months of her marriage, therefore, keeping in view these facts, the accused should not be released on bail, in nutshell, according to the learned Law Officer, keeping in view the gravity and nature of the offence, bail should be denied to the accused. However, as already stated, gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused, is not the sole consideration for denying bail.
7. It is not the case of the prosecution that if released on bail, the accused will flee from justice and it will not be possible to secure his presence to face the trial. It is also not the case of the prosecution that in the event of bail, the accused will, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution evidence. Thus, there is no legal impediment in granting the bail to the accused subject to suitable conditions.
8. As a result, this application is allowed and the accused is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sunder Nagar and in his absence, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi. The bail, however, is subject to the conditions that the accused shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not deliberately or intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the trial of the case.