Dismissed

Pankaj Joshi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2022BAIL/15032/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for bail in cases of dowry death under Section 304-B IPC rejected. The Court held that the accused husband failed to discharge the burden under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding suicide in unnatural circumstances. The trial court was directed to expedite proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pankaj Joshi Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15032 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pankaj Joshi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Chaturvedi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Arvind Singh, learned counsel on behalf of applicant, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Pankaj Joshi with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 249 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Pallavpuram, District Meerut during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Brief facts of the case is that an FIR has been lodged by Manish Sharma, brother of the deceased on 12.06.2021 at about 09:30 hours under section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against three named accused including the applicant alleging therein that the marriage of his sister was solemnized with the applicant on 07.12.2015 according to Hindu rights and rituals and the informant was given sufficient dowry as well as gifts according to his capacity at the time of marriage. Out of the wedlock one child was also born who is four years old at the time of lodging the first information report. It has been further alleged that the deceased was mentally and physically tortured for non fulfillment of additional dowry demand and she was finally done to death by accused persons. On 12.06.2021 at around 2:50 am, the informant received the information and after getting the information, he reached at her sister's place and was informed by the police personnel present at the main gate that no one was present in the house. He further informed that his sister was taken to SDS Global Hospital, reaching there he found that his sister had died. He saw injuries on the face of his sister, therefore, the present first information report has been lodged.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated on the ground of

¶9

being husband of the deceased holding him responsible for death of his wife. As per post mortem report cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of anti-mortem hanging and there is superficial incised wound of 3cm x 0.2 cm present on left wrist which cannot be taken as a injury which has resulted in death of the deceased and has not been caused to harass the deceased.

¶10

Placing reliance upon the statements of Sachin and Tushar, who are the supervisor and guard respectively of the colony in which the applicant resided alongwith the deceased, he submits that the deceased has committed suicide. In their statement they have stated that when they reached at the alleged flat they found that deceased was hanging from the fan and applicant alongwith his son was locked in a room which was bolted from the outside and it seemed like deceased had bolted the room from the outside.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the brother of the deceased had taken jewellery of the deceased since he did not return the same, the deceased out of frustration has committed suicide. He has emphasized on page 64 of the bail application wherein the applicant moved an application dated 15.05.2020 in which he has requested the concerned police station as well as the manager of the bank, where the jewellery of his wife was kept in the locker, to provide the CCTV footage from where it would be evident that on 13th April, 2020 at about 12:40 hours, the informant alongwith deceased had gone to take out all the jewellry from the locker. He has next submitted that two witness of fact had already been examined. He has next submitted that the four year old child is with his grandfather and keeping in mind welfare of the child, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶12

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the present application for bail by contending that the applicant is husband of the deceased and death of the deceased is an unnatural one and within seven years of marriage. It is further submitted that as per injury found on the body of the deceased as mentioned in the post mortem report shows that she was subjected to cruelty prior to her death. The story as narrated by the counsel for the applicant, disclosing the reason for committing suicide appears to be highly improbable as a lady having four year old child will think twice about her child before committing suicide. It is next submitted that offence complained of against the applicant is under Section 304-B I.P.C., therefore, the presumption is available to the prosecution as after marriage of the deceased, she was mentally tortured and harassed by the applicant and was finally done to death. Consequently, the applicant is under

¶13

heavy burden to explain as to in what circumstances, the incident in question has occurred. However, upto this stage, the applicant has completely failed to discharge the said burden. The burden to proof regarding the innocence of the applicant, which is required under Sections 106 and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, remains undischarged, as the applicant has not been able to explain as to how occurrence has taken place, even when the occurrence has taken place in the house of the applicant. It is further submitted that specific allegations of additional demand of dowry have been made in the statement of the father of the deceased. Therefore, the allegations with regard to demand of dowry and the commission of cruelty upon the deceased for non-fulfilment of the alleged demand of dowry has been attributed to the applicant (husband), who is direct beneficiary of the said demand of dowry. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that whatever be the circumstances, it was an unnatural death, but even if it is a case of suicide, then too it would be death which had occurred in unnatural circumstances. Even in such a case, Section 304-B I.P.C. is attracted and this position is not disputed. Therefore, the prosecution has established that the applicant has committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶14

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, nature of the offence and perusal of the material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused and severity of punishment, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application stands rejected .

¶15

However, it is expected that the trial court shall make all sincere endeavours to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. It goes without saying that if the prosecution witnesses are not turning up deliberately, then the court below has all the powers to adopt all the coercive measures provided under the Code in order to procure the presence of the witnesses.

¶16

Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.

¶17

Order Date :- 2.12.2022 Arti

¶18

Digitally signed by ARTI SHARMA Date: 2022.12.19 11:29:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pankaj Joshi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pankaj Joshi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Bhartiya @ Anna Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Praveen Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Priyanshu Gaur @ Pisu Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Sachan @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P.