The court rejected the bail application of Dinesh alias Golu Gupta in a case of alleged dowry death under Sections 498A IPC, 304B IPC, and Dowry Prohibition Act. Considering the severity of punishment and facts, the judge found it not a fit case for bail.
Bail application rejected; applicant not granted liberty.
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. - 4415 of 2019
Applicant :- Dinesh Alias Golu Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Shri Sandeep Kumar Rai holding brief of Shri Sanjay Srivastava, 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 dowry death with general allegations being Jeth of the deceased; that as per averments made in FIR lodged by Puttan Gupta, his daughter Roli was married with Neeraj Gupta on 11.3.2015 and since after marriage she was being treated with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of Rs.1,00,000/-, motorcycle and LED T.V. and on 1.6.2018 when his son went to Sasural of his sister for giving certain articles as per tradition, those articles were thrown out asking him to comply with demand urgently or to face consequences and on 4.6.2018 he was informed that his daughter has died while her dowry death has been committed by named accused persons, who after committing maarpeet caused burns to deceased; 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 applicant is not named in FIR and has been falsely implicated by way of improvement made by first informant in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C.; that in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. first informant has stated that name of accused Raj Kumar @ Golu was wrongly mentioned in FIR, who lives in Delhi and has no concern and correct name of Golu is Dinesh, who was involved in the incident; that there may be differences between husband and wife and in any case Neeraj may be responsible for unnatural death of deceased; that applicant lives separately vide copy of his ration card at Annexure-6; that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from husband of the deceased; 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 6.6.2018.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that this is a case of brutal dowry death committed within 7 years of marriage and since before death deceased was treated with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that postmortem report of deceased dated 5.6.2018 states that death of deceased did take place about one day ago due to ante mortem burn injuries and all ante mortem injuries and it further states that she sustained (i) superficial to deep burns all over the body except both foot and soles, (ii) lacerated wound 5 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep at forehead 4 cm. above bridge of nose and (iii) lacerated wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep at top of skull, which shows that she was badly beaten and thereafter burnt to death; that contention of applicant that he is living separately is absolutely wrong and incorrect and mere by obtaining separate ration card for obtaining mere ration it may not be considered to be proof of separate living; that apart from it applicant in para 10 of the affidavit, given in support of bail application, has tried to take false plea of alibi by stating that he was out of station on the day of incident, but could not dare to give as to where and to which place he had gone on the day of incident, which shows incorrectness of allegations so made and there is presumption of dowry death against the applicant under section 113(B) of Indian Evidence Act; that applicant, if released on bail, shall misuse the 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 Dinesh alias Golu Gupta in Case Crime No.683 of 2018, under Sections 498A/304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 1.3.2019 T. Sinha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail application of an accused charged with dowry death under Section 498A IPC and Section 304B IPC maintained for accusation under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act is maintainable.
Whether the presumption under Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act necessitated rejection of bail in a case of brutal dowry death committed within seven years of marriage.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Dinesh Alias Golu Gupta
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
