High Court Bench rejected the bail application of a father-in-law accused in a dowry death case (Section 304(B) IPC), noting the trial could conclude within six months and directing the trial court to expedite proceedings.
Bail prayer rejected; trial directed to be concluded within four months.
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. 4791 of 2022
Hanif Ansari …… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ……Opposite party
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Shamim Akhtar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P.
Order No.05/ Dated:11.08.2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with S.T. No. 262 of 2022 arising out of Chanho P.S. Case No. 170 of 2021, registered for the offence under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned A.J.C. XV at Ranchi.
As per F.I.R. allegation is that informant daughter, Reshma Praveen (deceased) was married with Reyajul Ansari on 21.03.2021. It is alleged that just after the marriage while informant’s daughter was residing at her matrimonial home, her father in law, husband, Bhaisur and Gotni started taunting and tormenting about insufficiency of dowry. They raised additional demand of dowry as Pulsor Motorcycle, which was fulfilled by the informant but the present petitioner and other family members were not satisfied. They used to taunt her and threatened to kill her along with child in womb and ultimately on 05.10.2021 at about 9 A.M. informant’s daughter was killed by her husband, Gotni and Bhaisur by setting her on fire.
Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner, who happens to be poor father-in-law of the deceased. The petitioner is languishing in Judicial custody since 20.11.2021 without rhymes and reasons. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution, hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that it is very unfortunate case, where the newly wedded bride has been set on ablaze within seven months of her marriage due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry to the satisfaction of present petitioner and other accused persons. She was continuously subjected to physical and mental cruelty which culminated into her unnatural death. The involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offence has appeared through cogent evidence. Trial is also commenced which is likely to be concluded very soon, hence petitioner may not be admitted to bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation against the petitioner coupled with materials available against petitioner and also in view of the fact that there are only four charge sheeted witnesses remaining to be examined in this case and the learned trial court has reported that trial of the case may be concluded within six months, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail, which stands rejected.
However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, otherwise petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if so advised.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
R.K.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused in a Dowry Death case under Section 304(B) IPC.
Whether the trial court should expedite the conclusion of the trial to justify bail refusal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hanif Ansari
The State of Jharkhand
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
