The Court rejected a bail application filed by Rajesh Kumar in a dowry death case. Despite arguments regarding false implication and discrepancy in the cause of death, the Court found the applicant was not a fit case for bail.
The bail application of Rajesh Kumar under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 506 IPC is rejected.
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. - 9734 of 2019
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Dixit,Anupam Shyam Dwivedi,Utkarsh Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Upadhyay
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Sudhir Dixit, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Shiv Babu Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashutosh Upadhyay, learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated for dowry death with general allegations being father-in-law of deceased; that Smt. Reena wife of his son Rahul oftenly who was keeping unwell hanged herself and died on 1.10.2018 at 9:30 a.m. just after three months of marriage of which information was given by applicant at P.S. Rajpura, District Sambhal and inquest report of deceased was prepared on same day in presence of father of deceased; that subsequently upon allegations made by father and family members of deceased on the information given by F.I.R. was registered by police station concerned at Case Crime No.373 of 2018, under Section 304-B I.P.C.; that as per post-mortem report death of deceased did take place due to ante-mortem throttling but since her hyoid bone was intact the opinion of doctor is wrong and it was a case of hanging; that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Kailash, father of deceased stated that he made marriage of Reena with Rahul on 19.6.2018 with plenty of dowry with expenses of Rs.15 Lakhs and since after marriage she was being treated with cruelty for nonfulfilment of demand of Scorpio Car as dowry and on 30.9.2018 at about 7:30 p.m. she informed him on phone that she is being beaten and treated with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and if she is not fetched, her dowry death will be committed; that it was stated by him that at the time of inquest of deceased, applicant threatened him and obtained his signatures on blank paper under threat that he has to say that Reena hanged herself and they do not want any proceedings/enquiry and due to above reasons they had to sign; that at the time of incident Rahul, husband of deceased was at Greater Noida; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that applicant neither made any demand of Scorpio Car as dowry nor treated deceased with cruelty for nonfulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant may not be
beneficiary of Scorpio Car allegedly demanded, as dowry; that case of applicant is distinguishable from husband of deceased; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 22.12.2018.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant vehemently opposed prayer of bail and contended that this is a clear case of dowry death of bride within 3 months of marriage; that the deceased was being treated with cruelty for nonfulfilment of demand of Scorpio Car as dowry and her unnatural death did take place on 1.10.2018 at her Sasural and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty; that applicant is a very influential person who very cleverly gave an information at police station concerned about committal of suicide by hanging by his daughter-in-law concealing the fact that her dowry death was committed; that post-mortem report of deceased states that there were as many as eight ante-mortem injuries on person of deceased and cause of death was throttling which indicates that it is a case of homicide and not suicide; that father of deceased moved an application for lodging of F.I.R. against applicant and others for offence of dowry death on which order was passed by Magistrate on 27.10.2018 but the Police under influence of applicant, instead of lodging F.I.r. in compliance with order of Court, registered F.I.R. on information of applicant without naming him in the column of accused; that it will not be correct to say that deceased committed suicide by hanging herself; that applicant if released on bail shall tamper with prosecution evidence and shall misuse liberty of bail and delay and defraud fair 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 Rajesh Kumar in Case Crime No.373 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Rajpura, District Sambhal, is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 5.4.2019 Kpy
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit person to be granted bail in a bail application.
Whether the applicant's allegations of false implication and suicide by hanging are sufficient to grant bail at this stage.
Rajesh Kumar
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
