Investigating Officer on 28.06.2023 whereby 2 of the named accused i.e. Hariraj (husband) and applicnat-Harmuki (mother-inlaw) of the deceased have been charge sheeted under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. However, irrespective of above, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant is a lady and therefore, she is entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel for applicant, the deceased was a short tempered lady and she took extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. The bona-fide of the applicant is further explicit from the fact that except for the ligature mark, no other exterenal ante-mortem iinjury was found on the body of deceased. The husband of the deceased i.e. son of the applicant is already languishing in jail. Applicant cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry. Moreover, the allegations made in the FIR regarding demand of dowry and commission of cruelty upon the deceased on account of non fulfillment of additional demand of dowry are vague and bald allegations inasmuch as, they are devoid of material particulars. With reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant that since the aforesaid allegations made in the FIR are devoid of material particulars i.e. regarding the manner in which, the alleged demand of dowry was made and cruelty was committed upon the deceased, therefore, the same are liable to be ignored by this Court at this stage. No attempt has been made by the first informant to explain the same in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. either.
