Patent High Court of Jharkhand rejected an application for anticipatory bail in a dowry death case involving alleged poisoning and dowry demands, finding the allegations credible despite a non-pregnant viscera report.
Anticipatory bail prayer rejected.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1277 of 2020 Niranjan Pandit @ Niranjan Kumar Pandit .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & another … Opposite Parties
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY Through Video Conferencing
--For the Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vipul Divya, A.P.P. ---
Order No. 04 Dated 16th June 2020
Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides.
Defect No. 9(iii), as pointed out by the office, are ignored.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Deodanr P.S. Case No. 28 of 2019, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda.
The marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with petitioner one year back. It has been alleged that there was a demand of Rs. 4 Lakhs for purchasing a tractor and on non-fulfillment of which she was subjected to torture. On 18.05.2019 the informant came to know that his daughter has been poisoned and when her condition improved she had disclosed about the incident of poisoning. The victim ultimately died on 27.05.2019.
It has been stated by Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner that the First Information Report has been instituted after ten days of the occurrence. It has further been stated that the victim herself had committed suicide by taking poison since a day prior to the Lok Sabha Elections, the brother of the deceased had come to take her to her parental house which was objected to by the father-in-law of the deceased and which resulted in a quarrel culminating in the deceased taking her own life by consuming poison. Learned counsel further submits that as per the viscera report, no trace of poisoning was found upon the deceased. It has further been stated that after she had taken poison it was the accused persons who had taken her to the hospital, wherein after treatment she died after 9 days.
Mrs. Vipul Divya, learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made by the petitioner.
The petitioner appears to be the husband of the deceased. In the First Information Report itself there is an allegation of a demand of Rs. 4 Lakhs as well as the deceased implicating the petitioner by describing the occurrence
through signs. In fact one of the witness Upendra Pandit which finds mention in the impugned order has stated that she had signaled and tried to disclose that it was the accused persons who had administered poison to her.
Although the viscera report as per the learned counsel for the petitioner does not show traces of poisoning, but in view of the fact that there was a demand of Rs. 4 Lakhs made from the side of the petitioner apart from the attempts made by the deceased to indicate the involvement of the petitioner also in the incident, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail made by the petitioner is rejected.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.)
MK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a dowry death case alleging poisoning.
Whether the viscera report negating poisoning is a sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail when there are specific allegations.
Niranjan Pandit @ Niranjan Kumar Pandit
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
