Allowed

Meena Devi Alias Mina Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC25 Aug 2023B.A./2978/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants regular bail to elderly petitioners charged with dowry death under Section 304(B) IPC. The High Court, noting lack of prior complaints and the husband's history of liquor addiction, ordered their release with conditions to appear for trials and secure further relief pending appeal. Petitioners must furnish bail bonds and sureties to the Sessions Judge.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail with bond of Rs. 25,000 each and two sureties of similar amounts, subject to conditions of physical presence and non-tampering with evidence.

Meena Devi Alias Mina Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 2978 of 2023

¶3

Meena Devi @ Mina Devi

¶4

Nitai Mandal …… Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Krishna Mandal ……Opposite parties

¶8

----------

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶10

----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Gautam Kumar , Advocate Mr. Sauday Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Savita Kumari, Advocate

¶11

Order No.05/ Dated:25.08.2023

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

Present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for grant of regular bail in connection with Radhanagar P.S. case No. 12 of 2022 (S.T. Case No. 230 of 2022) for the offence under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I, Rajmahal.

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that petitioner no. 1, Meena Devi @ Mina Devi and petitioner no.2, Nitai Mandal are mother in law and father in law respectively of the deceased, who have been falsely implicated in this case without attributing any specific role. Earlier anticipatory bail of the petitioners was rejected during the course of investigation of the case vide A.B.A. No. 7676 of 2022 order dated 22.11.2022. It is further submitted that

¶15

¶16

charge sheet has been submitted in this case against the petitioners and they are in judicial custody since 17.02.2023. It is further submitted that there was tense relationship between the deceased and her husband. It is further submitted that admittedly, the marriage was solemnized before six years of the alleged occurrence in a temple without any dowry. Since after the marriage till the death of deceased no complaint before any authority or even before the panchayat was ever made by the informant against the petitioners in connection with harassment of the deceased or subjecting her to cruelty by the petitioners arising out of any demand of additional dowry and its non-fulfillment. Now a days there is tendency to rope all the family members even innocent relatives in dowry death cases simply because related to husband. Present case is also a burning example of false implication. It is further submitted that due to domestic dispute with her husband the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself in the night lying by ceiling of the room. It is further submitted that no presumption under Section 113(B) or 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is attracted against these petitioners in order to fasten their liability with the alleged offence of dowry death. Petitioners are old and infirm persons and undertake to co-operate 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 the case. In the course of investigation it is revealed by independent witnesses also that due to extra vagrancy and addiction of liquor of the husband, they were frequently quarreling with each other, but there is no role of the petitioners in the entire episode. Hence, petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

On the other hand, learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submitted that there are serious allegation against the petitioners of committing heinous offence of dowry death. Petitioners happen to be parent in law of the deceased and there is direct allegation that they were also demanding additional dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty since before her death, hence, petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶18

¶19

It appears that father of the deceased namely, Krishna Mandal has lodged a written report on 06.01.2022 at Radhanagar Police station stating interalia that he received information on his phone that his daughter Rupali Devi has been died by hanging in her matrimonial home. He went to the house of accused persons and found his daughter was hanging and all the family members were absconding. It is alleged that his daughter was married with Rajesh Mandal about six years ago and out of her matrimonial wedlock two children have been begotten. It is also alleged that after some months of marriage the accused petitioners were demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac) as Additional Dowry, due to non-fulfillment of said amount his daughter was threatened to be killed by the accused persons. The informant has raised suspicion against the accused persons that they killed his daughter by strangulation thereafter tied her on the ceiling giving shape of suicide.

¶20

Relevant provisions of law attracted in this case are extracted as under:

¶21

S 304B IPC :- Dowry death (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, for or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called ”dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

¶22

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

¶23

498-A IPC : Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

¶24

Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “ cruelty” means-

¶25

(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

¶26

¶27

(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

¶28

113(B) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 :- Presumption as to dowry death.-When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by

¶29

such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death .

¶30

From perusal of FIR and case diary it appears that there is casual reference of name of the petitioners as perpetrator in the alleged crime. During course of investigation it has surfaced that their was no dispute of scuffle with present petitioners rather husband was extravagant and liquor addict due to that reason deceased and her husband were frequently quarreling. In the span of 6 years of marriage of deceased no complain was ever made against petitioners who are old and infirm persons. There are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners showing their involvement.

¶31

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation against the petitioners coupled with materials available against petitioners, I am inclined to release the petitioners, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, I, Rajmahal in connection with Radhanagar P.S. case No. 12 of 2022 (S.T. Case No. 230 of 2022) subject to the conditions:-

¶32

Petitioners shall remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial of this case unless prevented from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

¶33

Petitioners shall not indulge in any or other similar offence till the conclusion of the trial.

¶34

Petitioners shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidences or

¶35

¶36

influencing the prosecution witnesses.

¶37

In case of violation of the aforesaid condition the bail of the petitioners shall be cancelled and shall be taken into custody by the learned trial court itself.

¶38

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶39

R.K.

Meena Devi Alias Mina Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Devi Alias Mina Devi 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

Pankaj Sahu Alias Pankaj Kumar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kahkasa Parveen Alias Kahkashan Parveen Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mustakim Alias Mustak Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravindra Kumar Singh Vs Dilip Kumar Sinha

Pankaj Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohammad Nasim Ullah Vs the State of Jharkhand