Allowed

Jag Narayan Das and Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Sept 2014A.B.A./5227/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner parents in a dowry death case where the marriage took place in 2004 and death occurred in 2012, ruling that Section 304-B IPC was not made out, relying on medical evidence suggesting suicide due to depression.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to be released on bail upon surrender by furnishing bonds of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties to the satisfaction of the CJM.

Jag Narayan Das and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 5227 of 2013

¶2

Jag Narayan Das 2. Meera Das …. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioners : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, Advocate ------

¶3

6/ 01.09.2014

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶5

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 833 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 3267 of 2012, for the alleged offences under Sections 304-B, 328 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶6

The petitioners are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased and it is alleged in the FIR that the petitioners and husband of the deceased were subjecting the deceased to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry and committed her dowry death by poisoning. In the FIR, there is no mention about the date of the marriage.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that there was love marriage between the deceased and son of the petitioners and the marriage had taken place sometimes in the month of May 2004 itself. It is submitted that the deceased had three children out of the wedlock and the first child was aged about 7 years old, who was born on 17.5.2005. Learned counsel also submitted that the deceased was suffering from psychiatric illness and she was taking drugs for last six months and she was conscious at the time of her treatment in the hospital, which is apparent from the Bed Head Ticket of the deceased. It is also submitted the deceased was suffering from heavy depression, due to which, she had taken poison. Learned counsel further submitted that prior to the occurrence, these petitioners were going to Bokaro and they met an accident and they were admitted in the hospital at Bokaro on 13.12.2012, which fact was also found during investigation of the case. The deceased in the present case had died on 15.8.2012. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the husband of the deceased has already been granted regular bail by order dated 29.7.2013 passed in B.A. No. 4102 of 2013 considering these facts.

¶8

-2-

¶9

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that there are serious allegations against these petitioners. Learned counsel, however, upon going through the case diary, admitted that it finds mentioned in the case diary that the marriage had taken place in the month of May 2004 itself, and the statement of doctor, who had admitted the deceased in the hospital, is also there, which shows that the deceased was conscious at the time of her admission and she had stated that she was suffering from psychiatric illness and was taking drugs for last six months. The deceased did not make any allegation against the accused persons. In the case diary, the statement of the doctor of the hospital at Bokaro is also recorded, who has stated that both the petitioners were admitted after accident on 13.8.2012 at Bokaro.

¶10

In the facts of this case, particularly, in view of the fact that the marriage had taken place in the month of May 2004 itself, whereas, death had taken place on 15.8.2012, which shows that the offence is not made out under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, Jag Narayan Das and Meera Das. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of their surrender / arrest, the petitioners, named above, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 833 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 3267 of 2012, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶11

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶12

R.Kr.

Jag Narayan Das and Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jag Narayan Das and Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

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

Ramesh Marandi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Gopi Krishna Nathani Vs The State Of Jharkhand Throuogh Cbi

Daya Singh and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ashok Singh Vs State Of Jharkhand

Sumitra Devi and Anr. Vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Vijay Prasad Gupta Vs The State Of Jharkhand