Allowed

Sudhirkumar Ramji Gupta v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Nov 2014BA/1447/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant charged with offences under Sections 498A, 306, and 304(b) IPC for alleged dowry harassment leading to his wife's suicide. The court noted an incomplete charge-sheet and procedural lapses regarding post mortem notes but granted bail on prima facie grounds, subject to judicial bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000 and one or two sureties in the like amount, with directions not to tamper with evidence.

Sudhirkumar Ramji Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

11.ba1447.14.sxw

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1447 OF 2014

¶5

Mr. Sudhirkumar Ramji Gupta. ... Applicant. Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent.

¶7

Ms. Aarti Bhoir i/b. Mr. Rishi Bhuta, advocate for Applicant.

¶8

Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for State.

¶9

CORAM : SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : NOVEMBER 19, 2014

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1 Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State. Perused the papers.

¶12

2 This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is arrested on 12/9/2013 in Crime No. 329 of 2013 which was initially registered for offence punishable under Section 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, section 304(b) of the Indian Penal Code was added.

¶13

3 It is the case of the prosecution that on 12th September, 2013 Rani, wife of the present applicant had committed suicide by hanging.

¶14

Talwalkar 1/5

¶15

2 11.ba1447.14.sxw

¶16

On the same day i.e. on 12/9/2013 Bhim Laxman Sahu, father of the deceased had lodged a report contending therein that Rani was married to present applicant on 16th August, 2013. It was a registered marriage. He had given valuable gifts to his daughter at the time of marriage. At the time of marriage, Rani was studying in first year B.Com in Nalanda College at Gorai. The applicant and his family members were not very happy with continuation of her education. After marriage she was not being sent to maternal house. He had learnt that there were some quarrels between the couple. The father of the deceased had rightly advised her that it takes time for newly wedded couple and therefore, she should have patience.

¶17

4 According to the complainant, on 12/9/2013 Rani had committed suicide as she was being mentally and physically harassed by her husband. Initially A.D. No. 181 of 2013 was registered. Inquest panchanama and spot panchanama were conducted in the A.D. Enquiry. It appears that the parents and relatives of Rani were present at the time of recording of both the panchanamas, but there were no serious allegations. The offence was registered only on the basis of the report of the father of Rani. Crime No. 329 of 2013 was

¶18

Talwalkar 2/5

¶19

3 11.ba1447.14.sxw

¶20

registered under Section 498A, 306 of the Indian Penal Code. On 12/9/2013 supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded and he had submitted that there was a demand of Rs. One Lakh for investment in the factory and on account of non-fulfillment of the said demand, she was being harassed and ill-treated and hence, she has committed suicide.

¶21

5 This Court has observed that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. However, post mortem notes did not form part of the charge-sheet. The post mortem notes was signed on 10th August, 2014 which would simply indicate that the Investigating Officer had not collected the post mortem notes from the medical officer at Boriwali Hospital for one year. And only when it was noticed by this Court, post mortem notes have been brought on record. Initially, it was submitted by the prosecution even before the Sessions Court that final cause of death has not been ascertained and therefore, bail was not granted. The post mortem notes indicate that the probable cause of death is “evidence of ligature mark over neck”. The “final cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging”. This would make it amply clear that an incomplete charge-sheet was filed under

Talwalkar

3/5

4 11.ba1447.14.sxw

Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Said practice has been deprecated by this Court on several occasions. However, it appears that the Commissioner of Police has not taken cognizance of the observations made by this Court earlier. The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and Thane shall consider the said aspect seriously and make serious attempt to follow the Statute i.e. Criminal Procedure Code, Criminal Mannual etc. in letter and spirit.

¶26

6 Learned Counsel for the applicant has rightly submitted that the marriage had subsisted for hardly four weeks. It cannot be said that the applicant had harassed her to such an extent that she would be driven to cause injury to herself or to commit suicide. In the first information report, father of the deceased has specifically stated that she was not allowed to continue with her education or she was not sent to her maternal house during the four weeks period and therefore, she had committed suicide. The allegation of demand of dowry of Rs. One Lakh appears to be an after thought. In addition, the applicant is in jail for more than one year and hence, deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Talwalkar

4/5

5 11.ba1447.14.sxw

7 In view of the above observations, the applicant has made out a prima facie to grant bail.

¶31

8 The observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature and the same shall not be considered in the eventuality that the applicant files an application seeking discharge. The Sessions Court shall not be influenced by the said observations at the time of trial, as they pertains to consideration of application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶32

9 Hence, the following order :

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) The application is allowed.

¶35

(ii) The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶36

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶37

10 The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶38

( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J)

¶39

Talwalkar 5/5

Sudhirkumar Ramji Gupta v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhirkumar Ramji Gupta v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Sharad Krishna Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vikas Narhari Londhe and Ors.

Sharad Krishna Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kailas Rangrao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Navajes Ajmal Hussain Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Suresh Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra