This judgment rejects the second bail application of the husband accused under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found strong circumstances, including unnatural death shortly after marriage, establishing a prima facie case against him.
Bail application rejected; accused not released.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3421 of 2018
Applicant :- Rohit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Tiwari,Pradeep Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This second bail application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.1067 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sadar, District Agra. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 21.9.2016 virtually in non-prosecution in absence of applicant's counsel.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
Perused the record.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the trial of the case has already commenced and the prosecution witnesses are being examined. Submission is that actually the deceased had some love affair with some boy and, therefore, dissatisfied with the marital life, she committed suicide as the affair got exposed, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that this is a case in which the deceased was married on 10.5.2014 but she met with her unnatural death under abnormal circumstances in the same year on 7.12.2014 and could not survive even for a year. The allegation of affair as has been made is simply preposterous and there is absolutely no proof for the same. It has also been pointed out that two sisters of the deceased are married in the same house and, therefore, to argue and plead that the deceased was married against her wishes forcefully by her parents is an improbable suggestion as the real sisters themselves would not have allowed the same and they would have definitely informed their husbands about such kind of background. There is absolutely no justifiable explanation for the unnatural death under abnormal circumstances that took place so soon after the marriage. There are clear allegations in the FIR itself that the demand of dowry was being pressed on behalf of the accused and cruel ill-treatment was meted out to the deceased. Threat to kill her had also been extended to the deceased. The applicant is the husband and is having onus to explain unnatural death taking place within the precincts of his own house so soon after the marriage, while explanation offered in this regard is specious and unsubstantiated by any kind of proof. As it is so obvious that the trial has already commenced and the matter is within the realm of the trial court which shall adjudicate on the point of innocence or guilt of the accused on the basis of thorough appreciation of evidence produced in the trial and any detailed finding on merits of the case at this stage may be likely to cause prejudice to the independent judgment of the court and may also cause prejudice to either side. Suffice it to say that short span of life which the deceased was allowed to have after marriage, the proved fact of her unnatural death in
abnormal circumstances and poor explanation for her unnatural death are strong circumstances to make out a prima facie case against the applicant, who is husband and who was otherwise responsible to ensure welfare and safety of his wife in which he has utterly failed.
In the aforesaid background, the second bail application stands rejected.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 24.7.2018 CPP/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the accused husband should be released on bail given prima facie evidence of dowry demand, cruel treatment, and unnatural death shortly after marriage.
Rohit
KRISHNA NABH BAJPAYEE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
