The High Court of Jharkhand rejected a regular bail application filed by the husband of a deceased woman. The case involved an offence under Section 304(B) IPC. The court found the death unnatural and occurring within seven years of marriage, declining to grant bail.
Bail application rejected; petitioner denied release on bail.
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
B.A. No.11860 of 2020
Md. Jafir … … Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohammad Asghar, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. ---
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.
---
03/03.03.2021: Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The present application has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No.75 of 2020, registered for the offence under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chatra.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 01.06.2020. Further, it has been submitted that the marriage has taken place six years prior to the incident and this is case of suicide. It has further been submitted that in similar circumstances mother-inlaw of the deceased, namely Haseena Khatoon has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 17.02.2021 passed in B.A. No.7679 of 2020.
On the other hand, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submission has been advanced that the ingredient of 304-B is made out as the death is not natural rather it is unnatural, and the occurrence has taken place in the matrimonial home. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased. On the above facts, the petitioner does not deserve bail.
Considering the material available on record and the fact that the death is unnatural and it has happened within seven years of the marriage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, at this stage.
Accordingly, the present bail application is, hereby, rejected.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves bail in a case involving Section 304(B) IPC regarding dowry death.
Whether the nature of the death being unnatural precludes the grant of bail.
Whether the petitioner’s prior custody and relationship to the deceased affect the bail decision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Md. Jafir
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
