In a criminal miscellaneous bail application for alleged dowry death, the Single Judge rejected the bail plea. The court noted severe punishment and complicity as factors, declining to comment on case merits at the stage of bail.
Bail application dismissed; applicant remains in custody.
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. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12188 of 2019
Applicant :- Sultan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vibhav Prakash Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Shri V.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated for committing dowry death of his wife; that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant regarding demand of dowry or treating the deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant neither made any demand of dowry nor treated deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that as per averments made in FIR lodged by Mohd. Aslam on 2.6.2018, his daughter Shabnam was married to applicant and since after marriage she was being treated with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry as her husband, applicant used to demand a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for going abroad and was paid Rs.20,000/-, but continued to treat Shabnam with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of balance amount and on 26.5.2018 at about 12.00 in noon her husband and co-accused persons put her to fire and were taking body for her burial without information to informant and on getting information he informed police and police sent the body for postmortem; that marriage of applicant with deceased was solemnized on 15.11.2014; that entire prosecution story is absolutely wrong; that real fact is that information of death of Shabnam due to burn injuries was given by applicant's elder brother, Niyaz to police at 8.35 a.m. on 27.5.2018 i.e. on next day informing that on 26.5.2018 at about 4.00 p.m. she was preparing food for Roja Aftar on hearth and due to gidding she fell on hearth by her face and sustained burn injuries upon which her sister, Yasmin, who lives in neighbourhood, reached and extinguished fire and then she was taken to Gorakhpur, but succumbed to burn injuries; that inquest report of deceased was prepared in presence of applicant's elder brother as well as sister and cousin brother of deceased between 9.00 to 10.00 a.m. on 27.5.2018; that as per postmortem report dated 27.5.2018 her death did take place about one day back due to shock and coma as a result of ante mortem injuries and as per description of ante mortem
injuries given in postmortem report there were "burn all over body except upper half of face, lower half of thigh, legs and buttocks"; that applicant did not cause dowry death of his wife; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 12.7.2018.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that applicant is the real culprit and death of deceased has taken place due to burn injuries in unnatural manner within four years of marriage following demand of dowry by applicant (Rs.1,00,000/-) and there is presumption of dowry death against applicant; that entire defence story about sustaining of accidental burn injuries by deceased at the time of cooking due to falling on hearth by face is absolutely wrong, concocted and in contradiction to findings on postmortem report which states that half of her face did not sustain burn injuries and belies the defence version of her falling on hearth by face, rather indicates that since fire was extinguished by her sister Yasmin, certain parts of her body could not be saved from burn injuries, that applicant, if released on bail, shall misuse liberty of bail and delay and defraud fair disposal of trial.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The bail application of applicant Sultan in S.T. No.382 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.188 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 304B, I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 27.3.2019 T. Sinha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in proceedings for dowry death under Sections 304B and 498A IPC.
Whether the presumption of dowry death under the D.P. Act applies to the facts present.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sultan
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
