The burden of dowry and torturous spouse is exceedingly excruciating creating immense physical and mental pain, and such circumstances and accused cannot be treated lightly. This was held in the judgment passed by a single bench judge comprising JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, in the matter SUJEET KUMAR V. STATE THROUGH DELHI ADMINISTRATION, dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail.
It was found that the wife of petitioner namely Jyoti Kumari was hanging. Counsel for the petitioner that as per the last message received by the brother of the deceased, she had committed suicide because she suspected her husband of having relations with different ladies and whenever, she confronted him in this regard she was badly beaten by him. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that in the entire suicide note there is not even a whisper of dowry demand by the petitioner or any of his family member. It is further submitted that the entire allegations alleged against the petitioner do not fall within the purview of ingredients of Section 304 B IPC. It is further submitted by him that the petitioner was on duty at the time of the incident and he has been falsely implicated.
Ld. APP for the State submitted that the suicide note and the statement of the father of the deceased cannot be read in isolation. There are allegations of demand of dowry. The death has taken place on 14.08.2020 i.e. within 7 years of marriage. The death is an unnatural death and soon before the death the deceased was subjected to cruelty, so it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 304 B IPC are not fulfilled in the present case. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that the material witnesses are yet to be examined and a young girl has lost his life because of the conduct of the petitioner and his family members.
The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the father of the deceased who has categorically stated that at the time of marriage Rs. 15 Lakh were spent on jewellery, furniture etc. and Rs. 4 lakh were spent on the welcome of baraties. No doubt, the father of the deceased states that after six months of the marriage things were normal but according to him as brother of the petitioner has made a house in Delhi, so the petitioner also wanted to have a house in Delhi so he started demanding Rs. 10 Lakh from the deceased. According to the statement of father of deceased Jyoti Kumari, she was even threatened with life when the demand of Rs. 10 Lakh was not fulfilled and he also stated that the petitioner was having illegal relationship.
After hearing both the parties The hon’ble Delhi High court dismissed the petition as The brother of the deceased has also produced a voice message recorded by the victim prior to her death which also narrates her mental state and as to how disturbed she was. The material witnesses in this case are yet to be examined. So keeping in view the facts, at this stage, no ground for bail of the petitioner is made out.