Allowed

Ashok Kumar Agarwal and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC7 Mar 2019Bail Appln./359/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court granted bail of Rs 25,000 per person to in-laws accused under Section 304 IPC for the death of their daughter-in-law. The court held that further detention was unnecessary as the death was caused by cancer, not the alleged assault, and there was no specific evidence against the accused. The FIR delay was noted.

What did the court decide?

Bail of Rs 25,000 each granted to petitioners with direction to cooperate with investigating officer and appear as required.

Ashok Kumar Agarwal and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Matrimonial and Divorce | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010037042019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln. 359/2019

¶5

1:ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL AND 3 ORS. S/O LAE DWARIKA PRASAD AGARWAL, R/O DR. HANDIQUE ROAD, PARBOTIA, TINSUKIA TOWN, P.O. AND P.S. TINSUKIA, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM.

¶6

2: SMTI. DROPADI DEVI AGARWAL

¶7

W/O SRI ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL R/O DR. HANDIQUE ROAD

¶8

PARBOTIA TINSUKIA TOWN

¶9

P.O. AN DP.S. TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM

¶10

3: SRI DIPAK KUMAR AGARWAL S/O LATE DWARIKA PRASAD AGARWAL

¶11

R/O DR. HANDIQUE ROAD

¶12

PARBOTIA TINSUKIA TOWN

¶13

P.O. AND P.S. TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM.

¶14

4: SMTI. RANJEETA AGARWAL W/O SRI DIPAK KUMAR AGARWAL

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

R/O DR. HANDIQUE ROAD

¶17

PARBOTIA TINSUKIA TOWN P.O. AND P.S. TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM

¶18

VERSUS

¶19

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K MAHAJAN

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 07-03-2019

¶25

By this petition u/s 439 of the CrPC petitioners Sri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Smt. Dropadi Devi Agarwal, Sri Dipak Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Ranjeeta Agarwal sought bail in connection with Tinsukia PS case 1137/2018 u/s 498(A)/304 of the IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶26

Heard Mr BK Mahajan, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr PP Baruah, learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

Also heard Mr R De, learned counsel for informant. He has objected to granting bail.

¶28

Page No.# 3/5

¶29

Learned counsel for petitioners narrating the facts etc pointed out that the victim died on 5.1.2018 but the FIR was filed on 16.2.2018 without proper explanation of the delay. The case was initially registered under Section 498(A) of the IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and subsequently, Section 304 of the IPC was added on 31.1.2019.

¶30

It is also highlighted that none were arrested after registration of the case but were arrested on 6.2.2019 after adding Section 304 of the IPC, contending that apart from some verbal allegation of the informant regarding cruelty on the part of the accused there is no medical document whatsoever to show that the victim sustained any sort of injury in her lifetime while staying in her matrimonial home whereas according to the medical report annexed the victim was treated at Doomdooma Hospital on 24.10.2017 and discharged on 28.10.2017 for her some sickness.

¶31

It is also pointed out that though the investigating officer has added Section 304 of the IPC, the medical report(annexure E) reflects that the victim died of cancer and submitted that in view of the material on record coupled with the delay in filing the FIR and in absence of any positive evidence regarding injury on the accused to attract the offence

¶32

Page No.# 4/5

¶33

u/s 304 of the IPC the arrest of the in-laws of the deceased is bad in law.

¶34

Learned counsel for informant, however, submits that there was incident of assault on the deceased, who also filed information to the police, on the basis of which a GD entry was made in 2011-12 but no such case was registered as the matter was settled between the parties.

¶35

I have gone through documents annexed and the case diary submitted.

¶36

The doctor who issued the death certificate clearly indicated that the deceased died of cancer and not of any sort of injury she sustained and so the death cannot be correlated with any injury on the victim, whereas Sections 299 and 304 of the IPC say as follows:

¶37

“ 299. Culpable homicide.

¶38

Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

¶39

304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

¶40

Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with¹⁰⁴ [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,

¶41

or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”

¶42

Going through the material in the case diary it is found that apart

¶43

Page No.# 5/5

¶44

from some allegation against the husband of the victim there is no specific evidence against the other accused persons being roped in to such serious offence. Marital discord between the parties was there since the marriage but at no point of time such cruelty was reported by the victim herself or her family members. Only after her death such serious allegation is made which is not continuous but scanty incident. Petitioners are in-laws(uncles and aunt) of the deceased.

¶45

Taking into account all above this court is of the opinion that further custodial detention of the petitioners is not required. They are allowed to go on bail of Rs 25,000 each with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Tinsukia with direction to cooperate with the investigating officer and to appear before I/O as and when required. Accordingly the petition is disposed of. Return the case diary.

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Na/

¶48

Comparing Assistant

Ashok Kumar Agarwal and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Agarwal and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

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

Mridul Kanti Nath Vs Smti Ranjana Nath

Abdul Hamid Akanda Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Ganesh Deka Vs the State of Assam

Rahul Amin Vs the State of Assam

Ajit Shill Vs the State of Assam

Niren Borah Vs Union of India