JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge(Oral) ASI Shri Narender Singh, PoliceStation, Lambagaon, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned. Status report taken on record. 2. In this petition, filed under the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner Arun Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the accused) is seeking regular bail, in connection with FIR No.100 of 2013, registered under the provisions of Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station, Lambagaon, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. 3. Learned counsel for the accused submits that accused is 22 years of age; belongs to a middle class family; prosecution witnesses are relatives of the deceased and as such accused is not in a position to influence them; challan stands filed in the Court; accused is not in a position to tamper with the record; also, there is no apprehension that either the witnesses would be threatened or intimidated during trial. 4. Accused is facing trial, in relation to an offence, punishable under the provisions of Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused got married to deceased Jyoti in the year 2012. According to the prosecution, Jyoti left her matrimonial home, on account of alleged acts of cruelties attributable to the accused. On 19.7.2013, at the time when deceased was at her parental house, she committed suicide. 5. Case was registered. Investigation revealed that deceased left a suicide note, clearly stating that accused had deceived/cheated her, as a result of which she committed suicide. Accused was arrested on 21.7.2013. Now, he is in judicial custody. 6. Report placed on record by the State, prima facie shows the suicide note to be in the hand of deceased. Cause of death is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. Challan stands filed on 17.9.2013 and soon trial is to begin. 7. Simply because there is no threat to the witnesses or that accused would not be in a position to influence the witnesses, cannot be a ground sufficient enough to release the accused on bail. 8. The principle for grant of bail is now well settled. The normal rule is bail and not jail. But then, while granting bail, Court has to consider all attending factors and circumstances, including the nature and gravity of offence; evidence on record; and the sentence of punishment, which the accused may be called upon to serve. 9. 8. The principle for grant of bail is now well settled. The normal rule is bail and not jail. But then, while granting bail, Court has to consider all attending factors and circumstances, including the nature and gravity of offence; evidence on record; and the sentence of punishment, which the accused may be called upon to serve. 9. In the instant case, accused got married to the deceased in the year 2012. It was a love marriage. Within one year of solemnization of marriage, relations became sour. Deceased took away her life on account of alleged acts of cruelty attributable to the accused. Keeping in view the nature and seriousness of offence, it is neither desirable nor in the interest of public/justice to enlarge the accused on bail. Crime against women is on increase and Courts cannot be unmindful of the fact that such offences need to be considered with greater seriousness. 10.Prosecution has recorded statements of various witnesses, including father of the deceased, according to whom, accused used to mentally torture the deceased, which fact she disclosed to him. Accused also did not bother to enquire about her welfare, at the time she was undergoing medical treatment. One month prior to the incident, accused took the deceased to the matrimonial home, but after one night, left her on the road near the Hanuman Temple. 11.It is seen that trial is in progress and as such, in such a heinous crime, indulgence is unwarranted. At this juncture, prima facie, it cannot be said that no case is made out against the accused. 12.While granting bail, Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 13.The apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versusAshis Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has held as under: “9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. 13.The apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versusAshis Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has held as under: “9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: 3. whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; 4. nature and gravity of the accusation; (ix) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (x) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (xi) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (xii) likelihood of the offence being repeated; 5. reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (xiii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. (See: State of U.P. through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 ; Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi & Anr. (2001) 4 SCC 280 ; Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598 ) 10.It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal. In Masroor (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) was a member, observed as follows: “Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided, but there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence.” (See also: State of Maharashtra Vs. Ritesh, (2001) 4 SCC 224 ; Panchanan Mishra Vs. Digambar Mishra & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 143 ; Vijay Kumar Vs. Narendra, (2002) 9 SCC 364.; Anwari Begum Vs. Ritesh, (2001) 4 SCC 224 ; Panchanan Mishra Vs. Digambar Mishra & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 143 ; Vijay Kumar Vs. Narendra, (2002) 9 SCC 364.; Anwari Begum Vs. Sher Mohammad, (2005) 7 SCC 326 ) 11.We are constrained to observe that in the instant case, while dealing with the application of the accused for grant of bail, the High Court completely lost sight of the basic principles enumerated above. The accused, in the present case, is alleged to have committed a heinous crime of killing an old helpless lady by strangulation. He was seen coming out of the victim’s house by a neighbour around the time of the alleged occurrence, giving rise to a reasonable belief that he had committed the murder. We feel that under the given circumstances, it was not the stage at which bail under Section 439 of the Code should have been granted to the accused, more so, when even charges have not yet been framed. 12.It is also pertinent to note that, as stated above, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had rejected three bail applications of the accused but the High Court did not find it worthwhile to even make a reference to these orders. In this regard, it would be useful to refer to the following observations echoed in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : “In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to give specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent application for bail should be granted.” (See also: Ram Pratap Yadav Vs. Mitra Sen Yadav & Anr., (2003) 1 SCC 15 )” 13.When the aforesaid settled position of law is applied to the factual matrix of the instant case, I am of the considered view that it would not be in the interest of justice to grant bail. 14.Taking all the aforesaid facts into consideration, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the present petition is dismissed. 14.Taking all the aforesaid facts into consideration, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the present petition is dismissed. 15.Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. Petition stands disposed of.