High Court at Ranchi rejected an anticipatory bail application regarding a dowry death. The court held that given the allegations, death within seven years of marriage, and presence of all accused at the scene, Section 113-B of the Evidence Act shifted the onus to the applicants to explain the death.
Prayer for anticipatory bail 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.3945 of 2022
..... … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.
07/11.08.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Spl. P.P. for
the State.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed applicants seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Radhanagar P.S. Case No.178 of 2021 registered under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajmahal.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged against six named accused including the applicants with the allegations that the sister of the informant, namely, Maseda Bibi was married with Irfan Sk about one and half year ago from the date of occurrence. After few days of marriage, the in-laws of the sister of informant made demand of Rs.1 lac in cash and a motorcycle and for non-fulfillment of the same, she was harassed. On 08.09.2021, the informant received information in regard to dowry death of his sister from the villagers and he reached to the in law’s house of his sister and found his sister dead.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicant no.1 is the father-in-law and applicant nos.2 and 3 are brother-in-law and applicant no.4 is mother-in-law of the deceased. The role assigned to all the named accused is general and omnibus and the applicants had never tortured the sister of the informant for the alleged demand of dowry.
Learned Spl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and contended that admittedly all the applicants resided in the matrimonial house and unnatural death of sister of the informant took place in matrimonial house within seven years of marriage and the allegations against the applicants are that the demand of Rs.1 lac in cash and a motorcycle was made and for nonfulfilment of the same, the sister of the informant was harassed. Admittedly, all the applicants were present on the fateful night at the matrimonial house, as such, under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act onus lies upon the applicants to
-2-
explain how the unnatural death took place in matrimonial house.
In view of the submissions made and materials available on record, it is not a fit case of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the applicants’ prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Rohit
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the facts alleging dowry death under Section 304-B IPC make this a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Barjahan Sk and others
The State of Jharkhand
Subhash Chand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
