V. B. Bansal ( 1 ) SUSHIL Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Batra has filed thisapplication for bail for the offences under Section 304/498a and in the alternativesection 306 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code in case FIR No. 536/92, Policestation Paschim Bihar. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution story the petitioner, Sushil Kumar @ Sushilkumar Batra, was married to Seema on 7. 3. 1991 and out of this wedlock one femalechild was born on 31. 1. 1992. Seema died on 1. 11. 1992 and the post-mortemexamination was conducted on 2. 11. 1992. After the receipt of report of CFSL thedoctor gave his opinion that death was due to Baigon poisoning. Case wasregistered on the basis of the statement of Vipin Babbar, brother of the deceased,recorded by the S. D. M. It was inter alia stated by the complainant, Vipin Babbar,that his sister Seema was married to Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Batra on7. 3. 1991 as per Hindu rites and for about one month everything was normal but,thereafter, her in-laws started taunting her for not bringing sufficient dowry. It wasalso stated by him that her husband used to taunt her for not bringing differentarticles and initially she did not disclose this fact to them but when they came toknow if it he and his family member consoled her by saying that everything wouldget settled. He had also narrated about his visits to the house of Seema and havingfound injury on her forehead and informed by Seema that it was inflicted by herhusband with a flower-pot. He has also claimed that Seema came to their houseon the occasion of Bhai Dhuj and expressed a desire for not being sent back to thein-laws as she apprehended that she would be killed and that even on an earlieroccasion she wanted to come back to the house of her mother but a request wasmade to her not to do so by Ashok, elder brother of her husband. It was alsoclaimed by him that on 1. 11. 1992 it was the birth day of her younger sister Renuwhere Seema and Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Batra were to participate and atabout 8. It was alsoclaimed by him that on 1. 11. 1992 it was the birth day of her younger sister Renuwhere Seema and Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Batra were to participate and atabout 8. 30 p. m. a telephone was received from Seema that they would not be ableto join them and that Renu gave advice to Seema not to feel agitated and that sheshould not do anything and that about 20/25 minutes later they received atelephone that Seema was lying and that they did not have any vehicle for removingher. He claimed that they reached the house of Seema after about half anhour whenusha, wife of Chander, elder brother of Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Batra, metthem and on persistent enquiry was told that she has been removed to West Cityhospital, Mansrover Garden and on reaching there they came to know that she wasdead. It was further stated that at that time Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Batraadmitted his guilt and begged to be excused. ( 3 ) DURING investigation of the case, statements of the witnesses were recorded, including those of Smt. Narinder Kumari, mother; Naresh, borther; Ms. Renu, sister, of the deceased and Smt. Sudesh Arora, a relation of Smt. Narinderkumari. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has never beenany demand fordowry nor was there any harassment caused to the deceased by thepetitioner. He has further claimed that it was a love marriage between thepetitioner and Seema, who was more educated then the petitioner. He has furthtersubmitted that the petitioner took great care of his wife and daughter and got hugeamount deposited in the name of the minor child and, thus, there could possibly beno question of demand of any dowry from his in-laws since the financial status ofthe petitioner was much higher than that of the family of his in-laws. He has alsosubmitted that only relations have made false statements and that other relationsof the petitioner have already been released on bail. A prayer has, therefore, beenmade for the petitioner to be allowed bail. ( 5 ) THIS application has strongly been opposed by the learned Counsel for thestate, who has submitted that there has been continuous harrasment of thedeceased eversince the deceased was married to the petitioner and there werecontinuous demands for dowry. He has further submitted that the petitioner hadeven made a demand for Rs. 1, 00,000. ( 5 ) THIS application has strongly been opposed by the learned Counsel for thestate, who has submitted that there has been continuous harrasment of thedeceased eversince the deceased was married to the petitioner and there werecontinuous demands for dowry. He has further submitted that the petitioner hadeven made a demand for Rs. 1, 00,000. 00 so as to enable him to change his old car andthat the deceased having died of unnatural death in less than two years of themarriage, the case is fully covered by the provisions of Sections 498a, 304b andcould be even under Section 306, Indian Penal Code. A prayer has, therefore, beenmade that the application may be dismissed. ( 6 ) I have gone through the statement of Vipin Babbar and Naresh Babbar,brothers; Smt. Narinder Kumari, mother of the deceased; as also the statement ofsmt. Sudesh Arora, a relation of Smt. Narinder Kumari. ( 7 ) THERE are clear allegations against the petitioner with regard to harassment,demand of dowry and complaints of having given less dowry by the in-laws ofseema. It has also come in the statement of the witnesses that the petitioner hadeven inflicted injuries to Seema, which were noticed by Vipin Babbar on his visit tothe house of the petitioner. Vipin Babbar and Smt. Sudesh Arora have been statedwith regard to the petitioner having admitted before them that he has committeda mistake and begged to be pardoned. There is no doubt that the petitioner hasclaimed that his financial position is sound and there was no necessity for him tomake any demand and that he had even deposited huge amount in the name of hisminor daughter, but these facts need to be gone into during trial. Considering all the facts contained in the statements of the witnesses reliedupon by the petitioner, I do not find sufficient grounds for the release of thepetitioner on bail. As a result the application stands dismissed.