In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, the court rejected the prayer for the mother-in-law of a deceased woman. The court held that forensic findings of asphyxia due to throttling ruled out suicide, making the death unnatural, and thus the case was not a fit one for bail.
The bail application filed by Smt. Kusuma was 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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31857 of 2021
Applicant :- Smt. Kusuma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lallan Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Lallan Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Smt. Kusuma , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 295 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. It is argued that the deceased as per the inquest report had received only one injury on her neck and there is specific recital that there is no other bodily injury found on her body. It is argued that in the postmortem examination, the hyoid bone was found to be fractured which is a situation which can be found even with a person who commits suicide as the same can get fractured due to weight of the person. It is argued that the officer conducting inquest has also opined that the cause of death is because of hanging. It is argued while placing paragraph 15 of the affidavit that the applicant is a lady and is aged about 56 years. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 and is in jail since 11.01.2021.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the first information report and there are allegations of demand of a motorcycle and golden chain from the deceased and due to nonfulfillment of the same, she was tortured and harassed by the accused persons. It is further argued that in the postmortem examination report, the doctor has found one contusion present on the neck left side and also an abraded contusion on the neck right side. The same was having hematoma in the skin and muscles and the hyoid bone was fractured. The cause of death was opined as asphyxia due to antemortem throttling which is
not consistent in any manner with suicide. It is argued that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 04.03.2016 with Surendra Prajapati, the son of the applicant. It is argued that the death of the deceased has taken place within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house which is unnatural. Learned counsel has further argued that there is no explanation whatsoever given by the applicant regarding the unnatural death of her daughter-in-law in the house.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of throttling which completely rules out the possibility of suicide.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 1.12.2021 AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail in a case involving the unnatural death of her daughter-in-law where the cause of death is throttling.
Whether the findings that the death was not a suicide justify denying bail to the mother-in-law accused of dowry harassment and torture.
Smt. Kusuma
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
