11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named/charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased on 27.11.2020/30.11.2021. The occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings has occurred on 20.08.2022 i.e. even before expiry of 2 years from the date of marriage. As such, the death of the deceased is a dowry death. As per the medical opinion, the death of deceased is homicidal and the cause of death of deceased is strangulation. As such, the death of deceased was caused by a deliberate act. Applicant is an inmate of the house and also the husband of the deceased, therefore, the burden is upon the applicant to not only explain the manner of occurrence but also his innocence in terms of Sections 106 and 113-B of the Evidence Act. However, the applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden up to this stage. It is thus contended that no sympathy be dhown by this Court in favour of applicant. 12. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 13. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of accused, accusations made coupled with the fact that the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings has occurred prior to 7 years of marriage, therefore, the death of deceased is a dowry death, the applicant is an inmate of the house and also the husband of deceased, therefore, by reason of above, the burden is upon the applicant to not only explain the manner of occurrence but also his innocence in terms of Sections 106 and 113-B of the Evidence Act, however, the applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden up to this stage, as per the medical opinion, the cause of death of deceased is ante-mortem strangulation which clearly denote that there was a deliberate act performed to cause the death of deceased on account of medical opinion, there is possibility of awarding the maximum sentence under Section 304-B IPC, therefore, irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. 14. As a result, present application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected. 15. It is accordingly rejected." Learned counsel for applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit in Court today, which is taken on record. With reference to the statement of PW-3 Awadhesh Yadav, who is the brother of the deceased, it is sought to be urged by the learned counsel for applicant that the death of deceased is a suicidal death and not homicidal. She, therefore, submits that the opinion expressed by the Doctor in the post-mortem report dated 20.08.2020 whereby he has opined that the cause of death of the deceased is strangulation is prima facie erroneous. On the above premise, it is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
