This is a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The applicant, husband of the deceased, sought enlargement. The court found that the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage, creating a presumption of dowry death. The court denied bail.
Bail application rejected; applicant remains in custody.
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. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36638 of 2022
Applicant :- Krashanveer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Poonam Srivastava
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mrs Poonam Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the �rst informant.
By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Krashanveer, who is involved in case crime No. 18 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Sidhpura, district Kasganj, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
As per prosecution case, in brief, the informant, who is brother of Priyanka (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') lodged a �rst information report on 14.2.2022 against the present applicant (husband), Urmila (mother-in-law) and maternal aunt of the applicant with the allegations that marriage of his sister was solemnized with the applicant four years ago. In the marriage su6cient dowry was given as per his capacity, but her in-laws were not satis�ed with the dowry and they used to harass his sister. On 14.2.2022, he received information from some reliable person that his sister has been done to death in her matrimonial home.
The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that deceased committed suicide by hanging herself leaving behind her a toddler aged about 2 years. The allegations of demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased are totally false as she was never harassed in her matrimonial home. It is also submitted that since the deceased was hyper sensitive lady and, therefore, on a petty issue she became furious and committed suicide. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant
that there is no chance of the applicant of :eeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.3.2022.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that deceased died her unnatural death within short span of three years and six months of her marriage in her matrimonial home. The information about the death of the deceased was also not given by the applicant. The mother and father of the applicant are taking care of toddler of the applicant.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I �nd that the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage, therefore, presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Evidence Act shall be drawn against the applicant. Non-giving information about the death of the deceased to her parents cannot said to a natural conduct of the applicant, which indicates his ulterior motive. The applicant being the husband of the deceased is not only responsible for taking care of his wife, but also under heavy onus to explain the cause of her death which has occurred in his house.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of o=ence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not �nd any good ground to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage.
It is clari�ed that anything observed in this order is limited to the extent of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence to be adduced
unin:uenced by anything mentioned in the order.
However the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties in accordance with the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 12.4.2023 Ishrat
Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ISHRAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in a case involving presumptive dowry death under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
Whether the applicant has any grounds to suppress or tamper with the decisive evidence against him.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Krashanveer
State of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
Mohammad Ishrat
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
