JUDGMENT 1. - This is an unusual case in which the role that has been played by the police cannot be appreciated. 2. Mst.Veero Kaur, wife of the accused-petitioner committed suicide on 16.3.2010 at her in-law's place in village Bhojpur of Bharatpur district. Her family members arrived at the place of her in-laws on that very day. A written application signed by real uncle of the deceased, her father having already died, and cosigned by her brother, her maternal uncle, her cousins, both from maternal and paternal side, and several other villagers was submitted to SHO, Police Station Gopalgarh that she died natural death and that they did not want any action in the matter. SHO made an entry in the Rojnamcha Aam at S.No.530 at 1.05 PM on 17.3.2010 to the effect that since both parties did not want postmortem of the dead body as this was a case of natural death and they had no doubt about the death having taken place in natural course, the matter was closed and dead body of Mst.Veero Kaur was allowed to be cremated. 3. It so happened that mother of the deceased Mst.Veero Kaur did not agree to this and filed a criminal complaint on 20.3.2010 in the Court concerned which was sent for investigation to the Police Station Gopalgarh, District Bharatpur for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On that basis, a regular first information report was chalked out and registered as FIR No.39/2010 on 24.3.2010 for offences under section 304B, 201 and 120B of IPC. 4. Shri Jai Raj Tania, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that FIR in the present case is delayed by eight days and if delay is counted only upto the date of filing of complaint, at least by four days and that when the complainant-party had agreed that this was a case of natural death and therefore they did not want any action, they cannot be allowed to take a different stand. It is contended that there was no case for offence under section 304B of IPC because the allegation of demand of dowry soon before the death could not be substantiated. Learned counsel in this connection referred to the statements of independent witnesses Ram Singh, Kehar Singh and Guru Charan Singh. It is contended that petitioner-husband, who alone has been made accused, was arrested on 2.5.2010. Learned counsel in this connection referred to the statements of independent witnesses Ram Singh, Kehar Singh and Guru Charan Singh. It is contended that petitioner-husband, who alone has been made accused, was arrested on 2.5.2010. Investigation is complete and challan has been filed. Even accepting the version of prosecution, based on the above referred to statements and other evidence that the deceased Mst.Veero Kaur committed suicide, petitioner cannot be held responsible for her own action. On the contrary, the learned counsel submitted that evidence which has come on record suggest that the petitioner immediately took the deceased firstly to hospital at Sikrai in an auto rickshaw for treatment and thereafter to Alwar by a hired jeep, but she unfortunately died. 5. Shri Amit Punia, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the investigation did not substantiate the allegation of demand of dowry soon before the death except statements of complainant Banto Kaur, Veerpal Singh, Dayal Singh and sister of complainant Dayali Bai, who were all interested witnesses and were found to be making such statements out of exaggeration with a view to improving the case. The police, relying on the statement of independent witnesses, rightly filed challan only for offence under section 306 IPC. It was discovered during investigation that petitioner used to harass the deceased and that on the day of incident, a quarrel took place between the petitioner and deceased Mst. Veero Kaur and petitioner slapped her and infuriated by that, she took the extreme step of committing suicide. 6. Shri Jainendra Jain, learned counsel for the complainant also opposed the bail application and submitted that in fact the challan should have been filed for offence under section 304B of IPC and even if it was filed for offence under section 306 of IPC, petitioner should not be released on bail because he is the main culprit for abatement to commit suicide. It was he, who was responsible for deriving the deceased Mst. Veeru Kaur to commit suicide. Learned counsel submitted that signatures of uncle, brother and other close relatives of Mst. Veero Kaur were obtained on the said application by the accused party and the police party under pressure and coercion and therefore such an application could have no value. 7. It was he, who was responsible for deriving the deceased Mst. Veeru Kaur to commit suicide. Learned counsel submitted that signatures of uncle, brother and other close relatives of Mst. Veero Kaur were obtained on the said application by the accused party and the police party under pressure and coercion and therefore such an application could have no value. 7. Interestingly in this case, father of the petitioner has also lodged a cross FIR against the complainant party to say that it were they, who pressurised them for cremation of the deceased Mst. Veero Kaur and, therefore, on that basis, an FIR for offences under section 176, 201, 379, 120B IPC was registered against them. The police in the present matter has originally registered a case against the accused petitioner for offence under section 304B, 201 and 120B of IPC but ultimately the investigating agency has found a case worth filing challan for offence under section 306 of IPC only. The Circle Officer, who is present in Court has explained with the help of case diary and other papers that there was indeed evidence to show that the deceased Mst. Veeru Kaur did not die natural death, rather she consumed poison, which led to her death. 8. Conduct of the police in allowing the dead body of the deceased to be cremated without subjecting it to postmortem indeed leaves much to be desired. On being asked, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that such action was taken by local SHO with due permission from S.D.M. Kaman, Circle Officer, Kaman, Additional S.P.(North) and S.P. Bharatpur. He in this connection invited attention of the Court towards above referred to roznamcha entry. It is surprising that when someone has died unnatural death and that too, apparently by consuming poison, how could the local police act so irresponsibly. Fact that it was unnatural death would have been too well known to everyone in the village because from evidence that has been subsequently collected, it has come to light that this was known not only to petitioner-husband but also to witnesses Ram Singh, Kehar Singh and Guru Charan Singh and so many others and which fact could be easily discernible from their conduct, because they took the deceased to hospital initially at Sikrai and thereafter to Alwar. Obviously, the police became a party to the act of hushing up an otherwise cognizable offence and commission of offence under section 201 of IPC. What is more surprising is that the Investigating Officer completely omitted section 201 of IPC from the challan. It cannot be comprehended why when dead body of the deceased was cremated without postmortem, offence under section 201 of IPC was not be added to the charge sheet that has been filed against the petitioner only for offence under section 306 of IPC. 9. Action or inaction of the police, whichever way one may look at it, deserves condemnation. Police ought not to have allowed cremation of the dead body without the same being subjected to postmortem, even if uncle or for that matter, other relatives of the deceased or villagers gave this in writing. Police cannot be expected to play the role of a mere onlooker and become a party to concealing and suppressing a non-bailable and cognizable, as also non-compoundable offence of Section 306 of IPC. Those people had no authority in law to condone or compound such offence. Section 320 of Cr.P.C. has enumerated offences in two tables given under sub-sections (1) and (2), which can be compounded without and with the permission of the Court respectively. Therein is also specified as to who would be competent to compound a particular type of offence. Offence which are too grave in nature or those like sections 302 and 306 etc., where the victim is no longer alive, are deliberately not included in either of the tables. That the offence under Section 306 of IPC as per legislative policy of the State is considered serious is evident from the fact that this offence is made cognizable and non-bailable. And it is considered grave and heinous therefore purposely categorised as cognizable because the State takes upon itself the responsibility of prosecuting those accused of committing such offence in order to get them punished. This is based on the analogy that the State has the duty to protect person (life) and property of all its citizens. If the State is charged with that duty, how could the local police submit to the wishes of accused and relatives of deceased for suppressing the matter. 10. This is based on the analogy that the State has the duty to protect person (life) and property of all its citizens. If the State is charged with that duty, how could the local police submit to the wishes of accused and relatives of deceased for suppressing the matter. 10. For the present however, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, who could however be at liberty to again apply for bail before the court below itself after the statement of Ram Singh, Kehar Singh and Guru Charan Singh are recorded, which witnesses would be produced by the prosecution on priority basis. 11. The Director General of Police is required to take necessary action against those found responsible for collaborating in the act of hushing up a cognizable offence and allowing cremation of deceased Mst. Veeru Kaur, who died due to poisoning and not a natural death. The action taken report would be submitted to this Court within a period of three months. 12. The bail application is rejected with the aforesaid directions.A copy of this order be sent by the Director General of Police for information and necessary action. *******