Judgment:
1. Deceased Monalisa Bharal was married to the petitioner herein about 16 years back according to social customs. The petitioner herein contested the last assemble election as a BJP candidate from Hajo Constituency.
2. On 21.4.11 the petitioner along with his wife, Monalisa Bharali (since deceased) their two daughters, a maid servant and the PSO attached to the petitioner attended the family function at the residence of Sri Alakesh Barua, brother-in-law of the deceased. The deceased was allegedly humiliated by Sri Parag Saikia, his wife Smti. Uma Lahkar Saikia and their daughters Santana Parag Saikia and Bandana Parag Saikia by making some derogatory remarks against her character for which she (the deceased) became upset and ultimately committed suicide after setting fire on herself.
3. After the incident all the relatives of Monalisa Bharali were informed, who visited the hospital. Monalisa Bharali succumbed to her burn injuries in the hospital. Informant, Sri Nabajyoti Lahkar, the brother-in-law of the present petitioner suspected petitioner's involvedment in the death of his sister, Monalisa Bharali and accordingly filed the FIR with the Officer-in-charge, Noonmati P.S. on 23.4.2011. FIR having been filed , Noonmati P.S. Case No.125/11 was registered U/s. 498-A/302 IPC.
4. The petitioner herein apprehensive of his arrest in connection with the case as indicated above has presented this application U/s. 438 CrPC to provide him the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Mr. A.K.Bhattacharjee, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the deceased, Monalisa Bharali while visiting her brother-in-law's residence for a family function along with the petitioner and their two daughters, she was badly humiliated by Sri Parag Saikia, his wife and his daughters assailing her character which prompted her to take the extreme step.
5. It was submitted by Mr. A.K.Bhattacharjee that after returning from the family function, Monalisa Bharali had telephonic talk with some of her relatives on account of her humiliation in the house of her brother-in-law. On the night when all her family members fell asleep, she set herself on fire by pouring kerosene. Hearing cries of Monalisa, the petitioner and their eldest daughter Miss Dorothy awoke up from sleep and had seen Monalisa being burnt. He somehow put off the fire with water and immediately shifted her to hospital for treatment. It is according to Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior counsel that in the circumstances of the case appearing on the face of the record, there can be no room of suspicion that the petitioner had the complicity in the death of Monalisa Bharali.
6. Mr. Bhattacharjee, therefore, submitted that this is a fit case where privilege of pre- arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner. Case diary having been placed before this court, the materials therein are perused carefully. Post mortem report speaks of commission of suicide. Doctor while conducting autopsy did not discover ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. It is indicated in the post mortem report that the tissues of the neck were found healthy. Post mortem report does not speak anything adverse against the petitioner. For the purpose of this bail application, we are also constrained to peruse the statements of the witnesses so far recorded by the I.O.
7. From the composite reading of the statements of the witnesses recorded U/s. 161 CrPC, it appears that the deceased while visiting her brother-in-law's residence for a family function, she was humiliated mostly by Parag Saikia, his wife and their two daughters, namely, Santana Parag Saikia and Bandana Parag Saikia assailing her character and after returning home at about 2.30 AM set herself on fire by pouring kerosene. For such humiliation to Monalisa Bharali by the aforesaid relatives, the petitioner herein and his daughter Dorothy filed two ejahars with the Officer-in-charge of Noonmati P.S. making responsible Parag Saikia, his wife and their two daughters mostly for death of Monalisa Bharali. In the FIR they have also made allegations against the other relatives and alleged that on account of their humiliation, Monalisa Bharali took extreme step.
8. The informant, Sri Nabajyoti Lahkar while giving statement U/s 161 CrPC categorically stated that there was no quarrel between Monalisa Bharali and the petitioner since 2000 and both were living peacefully. He also stated further that in the year 2000 there arose some misunderstanding in between the petitioner and his deceased wife and the same being family dispute resolved subsequently. I also heard Mr. B.B.Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P.Assam, who in usual fairness submitted that the materials so far available in the case diary do not speak of complicity of the present petitioner.
9. The post mortem report in respect of the deceased speaks of commission of suicide and there is appears nothing adverse. Taking into consideration of the facts in its entirety, the opinion of the doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Monalisa Bharali and the statements of the witnesses recorded U/s 161 CrPC, this Court is of the considered view that there is merit in the petition.
10. Interim bail granted by this court on 29.04.2011 is hereby made absolute. The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.