Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is father-in-law of the victim (since deceased). He has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein general allegations of demanding dowry and torturing the victim have been levelled against all accused persons, who are six in number including the present applicant but the main allegation has been levelled against husband- Pradeep. As per the prosecution story narrated in the FIR, the husband of the victim was drunkard and used to beat the victim quite often and demand the dowry. He used to threaten the victim that if he was not given dowry as demanded by him, he would kill her. Learned counsel has further drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.6 of the bail application, which is a statement of one independent witness Harish Chandra son of late Vishwanath wherein he has stated that the victim (since deceased) along with her husband were living separately. He has also stated that on account of dispute between the husband of the victim and the victim, the matter reached to Police Station - Itaunja where both the parties entered into compromise. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that mainly the culprit of the issue in question is the husband of the victim and the present applicant, who is an old aged father-in-law, is an innocent person. He has further submitted that charge sheet has been filed and the present applicant shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if he is granted. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.
