JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are ten accused in this case. The three sisters-in-law and their respective husbands were granted anticipatory bail by this court on the ground that, inter alia, they were living separately.
The other accused being the father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and brother-in-law (devar) of the deceased Shweta are in custody since 10.08.2004, the date on which the deceased Shweta committed suicide by hanging.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner’s brother (Sachin Wadhwa) was married to Shweta (the deceased) on 03.07.2004 He submitted that from the statement of Narender Verma, who is the uncle of the deceased Shweta and who was looking after the affairs of the entire family as the karta, it does not appear that there is any allegation whatsoever against the present petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also read out the statements of Gaurav Verma, the brother of the deceased Shweta as well as that of Smt Saroj Verma, the mother of the deceased. He further submitted that while the statements of Narender Verma and Gaurav Verma were recorded on 10.08.2004 itself, the statement of the mother of the deceased was recorded after some gap on 22.08.2004 In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submitted that since the petitioner has already been in custody for nine months and he is a young boy of 20 years of age and no specific allegation has been made against him, he ought to be released on bail.
3. The learned counsel for the State opposes the grant of bail on the ground that the deceased (Shweta) was married to the petitioner’s brother and within just about a month of her marriage, she committed suicide by hanging on account of specific demands for dowry. He submitted that even prior to the marriage having taken place, there are clear allegations that father-in-law of the deceased (J.P. Wadhwa) had made several demands in respect of dowry. In view of those demands, the uncle of the deceased ad thought it fit to break the engagement. Mr Dudeja, the learned counsel for the State, also referred to the statement of Narender Verma, the uncle of the deceased, to show that the father-in-law and the husband of the deceased once again met the said Narender Verma and requested him that the marriage should take place and that they had made a mistake earlier. From the statement, it becomes clear that the said Narender Verma was let to believe that no such demands would be made in future and that the husband of the deceased was very keen to marry Shweta (the deceased).
4. It is in these circumstances that the marriage took place. It also appears from the statement of the said Narender Verma that several items including a car, jewellery items, air conditioner, microwave oven etc. were given at the time of marriage by the said Narender Verma and his family. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the State, in these circumstances, the petitioner ought not be granted bail. He also submitted that just prior to the death of the petitioner, there appears to have been a demand for Rs.10 lac made by the in-laws and, in particular, by the father-in-law and the husband of the deceased.
5. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and the statements which were read out before me, it appears that all the allegations are centered against the father-in-law, the husband and mother-in-law and the allegations in respect of the present petitioner are only of a general nature. It is clear that there are specific allegations against the father-in-law for demand for dowry and also against the mother-in-law and the husband of the deceased. There are separate specific allegations against the husband and mother-in-law for having demanded dowry as well as of beating and harassment in respect of demands for the said sum of Rs.10 lac. However, as indicated above, the allegations against the present petitioner are only general and no specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner. Looking at the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has already been in custody for a period of about nine months, I direct that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court.
The application stands disposed of.