Allowed

Omprakash @ Guddu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2021BAIL/12309/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed bail to an applicant facing dowry harassment charges where the spouse died after childbirth. The court found the death resulted from post-operative complications unrelated to alleged dowry demands. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions to expedite trial outcomes.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and sureties subject to strict conditions regarding court visits and trial closure within one year.

Omprakash @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12309 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Omprakash @ Guddu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Vajpeyi,Manish Tiwary(Senior Adv.),Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Kumar Singh,Udai Chandani

¶5

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anurag Vajpeyi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶7

Pleadings exchanged between the parties and the matter is ripe for final submissions on the merits of the case.

¶8

By means of the present bail application the applicant, Omprakash @ Guddu (husband), facing prosecution in connection with Case Crime No.0163 of 2020, u/s 498A, 304-B and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.Maduadeeh, District-Varanasi, is seeking his enlargement on bail during trial. The applicant is in jail since 20.7.2020.

¶9

The instant F.I.R. was got registered by one Om Prakash @ Gopal father of the deceased (Nidhi Prakash) on 11.5.2020 under sections 498A, 304-B and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Manduadeeh, Varanasi against applicant Omprakash @ Guddu (son-inlaw of the informant) and his all other family members attributing usual and general allegations of dowry related to atrocities and inhuman maltreatment given to her by the husband and his family members. Not only this, when she was on her family way, her in-laws has never cared and

¶10

¶11

bothered about her health condition. Even on the date of delivery, she was given sub-standard medical assistance to her, resultantly, she lost her life untimely.

¶12

This Court has perused the F.I.R. and from it, two streams are originating from one and same F.I.R.;

¶13

(a) that the informant got her daughter Ms. Nidhi Prakash (deceased) married with the applicant on 25.6.2018 with lots of fanfare and spending considerable amount on the wedding in accordance to her stowage. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that after the marriage all the family members kicked her off for Rs.5 lacs and a four-wheeler, as an additional dowry, thereafter, as per prevailing practice in the society now-a-days, usual allegations of harassment, torture, keeping the girl hungry and other sorts of atrocities and maltreatment were levelled against all the family members of her husband. The situation even towered worse when she was prohibited to make any telephone call or converse with her parental in-mates but combating with the situation she somehow maneuvered to be in touch of her family members through any mobile phone set.

¶14

(b) that when she was expecting, she was offered sub-standard, improper and inadequate medical treatment of a local Dr. Sarojini Singh and her parental inmates were never informed about her admission in the hospital. On 04.05.2020 when she was blessed with a baby boy, on phone an information was given to her parents in a callous manner. Hearing which, the informant rushed to see his daughter in the hospital, where he axiomed her in a precarious and critical condition. Following day, the applicant and his family members shifted the patient to a local Apex Hospital, where she breathed her last on 7.5.2020 on account of her multi organ failure. On this, the informant inferred an inference that for worsening medical situation of his daughter, the applicant and his

¶15

¶16

family members are fully responsible. After her demise, post mortem of the carcass was conducted and ante mortem injuries over her neck was found, therefore, the victim side demanded that if a thorough and fair investigation is conducted in the matter, the truth would be unraveled.

¶17

On the aforementioned prosecution story, it is urged by learned senior counsel that there is inordinate delay of lodging the F.I.R. of four days and no plausible justification is coming forward explaining this delay. In fact, it is submitted, that this time period was recycled for tailoring a venomous story against the applicant and his family members. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and preposterous, merely a farrago of distortions and embellishments, as per prevailing practice now-a-days that any unnatural death of a deceased would necessarily attract the provisions of Section 304-B, 498A I.P.C. In fact the applicant hails from a respected family and he himself is Grade-II officer in the Indian Railways since 2005, a responsible citizen, who must be aware of that the demand of dowry is an offence. Even after the marriage, the relationship between the husband and wife were loving and cordial one and at the instance of the applicant, the deceased was pursuing her B.Ed. Course. Unfortunately in the year 2019 the deceased suffered a miscarriage but this time, when again she was expecting a baby, without wasting any time she was taken to nursing home of Dr Sarojini Singh, a renowned gynecologist of Varanasi and the expected date of parturition was referred to a 04.05.2020, ultimately on the date fixed the deceased was blessed with a baby boy through cesarean operation. It seems that during this surgical operation, certain

¶18

¶19

complications developed and internal organs, e.g., chest, kidney, liver and uterus of the deceased got infected, consequently her condition deteriorated rapidly, thus she whisked off to Apex Hospital Varanasi, a premiere nursing home of the city, where she was admitted and kept on dialysis, but as per the providence, despite of best efforts, she could not be saved and took her last breath on 07.05.2020. A death summary of the deceased issued by the Apex Hospital, Varanasi is annexed as Annexure-5. As per the report, patient admitted, evaluated and investigated and managed with antibiotic and proper I.C.U. care. Her urine output was nil, so consultant advised for dialysis. Patient condition continued deteriorating at 7.00 A.M. on 06.05.20 and she was kept on ventilator. During dialysis everything possible for medical treatment was provided to her, but the “patient received a sudden cardiac arrest” and was declared clinically dead on 5.28 A.M. on 07.05.2020. As per opinion of the doctor, she suffered a sudden cardiac arrest. After the death, her autopsy was conducted and usual surgical injuries were found over her person, the doctor opined that she has developed a septicemic shock due to infection of lungs and uterus.

¶20

On this, it was strenuously argued by the counsel for the applicant that it was an ill-fate of the applicant whose wife after giving birth to a baby boy on account of providence left him during her medical treatment, but the merciless inlaws of the applicant exploited this unfortunate demise of their daughter and raised a castle of utter falsehood and imaginary story for the alleged demand of a four-wheeler and Rs.5 lacs in cash was made. This, by itself, is unfortunate and grossest ever misused of this penal provision for their personal vendetta against the applicant

¶21

¶22

and his family members.

¶23

Per contra, Shri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the complainant, who filed counter affidavit sworn by the informant himself, drew attention of the Court to AnnexureCA-4, which finds an opinion given by Dr. Manoj Kumar Pathak, Professor and Head, Department of Forensic Medicine, B.H.U., Varanasi. This Court takes this expert opinion with pinch of salt on account that the C.O., Bhelupur has sought this report from Dr. Pathak demonstrating the postmortem report, ante-mortem photographs and treatment history. This, by itself, seems to be unethical. It is just possible that two professionals might have two different opinions with regard to same incident. Dr. Pathak in his report submits that the carotid artery is rare site of dialysis. As per treatment history the dialysis is only opted when there is septicemia with deceased urine output and the patient under ventilator and there is peripheral circulatory collapse. The Court is of the opinion that the two professional doctors might have two different point of views in a given situation but it cannot said be with certainty that the decision taken at Apex Hospital by their doctors is wrong and the opinion of Dr. Pathak is correct. It is a subjective satisfaction of attending doctor who acts and decides the matter at the spur of the moment.

¶24

Ignoring all these aspects of the issue and to put the record straight, one thing is for sure that the deceased died as a result of post cesarean operation at Apex Hospital Varanasi, a well reputed nursing home. So far as the allegation made in the F.I.R. by the father of the deceased that her daughter was not treated by nursing home of repute and instead of she was shifted to nursing home of

¶25

¶26

Dr. Sarojini Singh. This, by itself, is a very fragile and subjective argument. From this, it is abundantly clear that on account of providence the patient died which has no connection with the alleged additional dowry demand and therefore every unnatural death would not fall within the realm of Section 304-B I.P.C., as alleged in the F.I.R. No doubt, the applicant is husband and a stringent standard should be made applicable against him for granting him bail but in the instant case learned counsel for the complainant has fairly conceded that she died on account of certain post-operational complications and having no connection with the first part of the F.I.R. which speaks about the demand of additional dowry.

¶27

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶28

Let the applicant Omprakash @ Guddu, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶29

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶30

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE

¶31

¶32

TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶33

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶34

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶35

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶36

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶37

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶38

Since the bail application has been decided under extraordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are

¶39

¶40

imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶41

1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶42

2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶43

3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶44

4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶45

15. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶46

Order Date :- 1.11.2021 M. Kumar

Omprakash @ Guddu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash @ Guddu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rachit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brahmkant Vs State of U.P.

Satish Vs State of U.P.

Shailesh Sahani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramu Vs State of U.P.

Ram Awadh Kevat Vs State of U.P.