While the single bench application for anticipatory bail by mother-in-law and father-in-law accused in a dowry death case. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court refused bail pending investigation.
Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed; benefit of anticipatory bail not extended.
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 KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 11TH ASWINA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 4714 of 2018
CRIME NO. 489/2018 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 3:
1 FOUSIA, AGED 43, W/O. JAMAL, KURUPPAMVEETTIL HOUSE, VELLIKULANGARA P.O, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 JAMAL, AGED 55, S/O. KHADER, KURUPPAMVEETTIL HOUSE, VELLIKULANGARA P.O, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM-682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This application is filed under § 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Crime No.489 of 2018 registered at the Chalakkudy Police Station
under §§ 498(A), 304(B), 306 and 341 of IPC. They are the
BA:4714/18
2
mother-in-law and the father-in-law respectively of Safna, who died otherwise than under normal circumstances, on 30.06.2018. Initially, the case was registered under § 174 of the Cr.P.C. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that Safna was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws
in connection with demand for dowry. Consequently, the applicants and their son was arrayed as accused and penal provisions were added as aforesaid.
BA:4714/18
3
deceased should persuade her family to obtain more money to purchase property. By utilising the amount kept apart for the marriage of the younger sister of the deceased, an item of property was purchased in the name of the deceased. This irked the 1st accused and the applicants. On more than one instance, the 1st accused is alleged to have physically abused the deceased. By denigrating the deceased, certain messages were sent online, which were seen by her family members and friends. Traumatized by the continuous ill-treatment meted out to her, and being unable to suffer it any longer, the young lady took her own life on 30.06.2018. She left behind a 10- month-old child as well.
BA:4714/18
4
instance remote in point of time to the death of the deceased cannot attract the penal provision under § 304B of the I.P.C is the contention very forcefully advanced by the learned counsel. The learned counsel would further urge that the deceased was a highly sensitive person and due to her young age, she had not gained the practical wisdom to adjust to ordinary petulance and disharmony which occurs in every matrimonial home. She had decided to take her own life for reasons which have no connection whatsoever with the applicants herein. According to
the learned counsel, if the applicants are incarcerated on such frivolous allegations, they would be subjected to humiliation and ignominy.
BA:4714/18
5
According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is a perceptible nexus between the death of the deceased and the dowry-related harassment inflicted on her. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(1987) 1 SCC 466]; State v. Jaspal Singh Gill [(1984) 3 SCC 555]; Gajanand Agarwal v. State of Orissa [2007(14) SCC 537]; Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy [2013 (7) SCALE 15] and Nassirudin v. State of NCT [2014 (13) SCC 579]; and it is contended that investigation being in the early stages, grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants would not be justified.
gone through the case diary which was made available. The deceased has taken her own life within 2 years of marriage after leaving behind her 10-month-old child. The deceased was well employed in the Police department and she was educated. The case diary prima facie reveals that she was subjected to a continuous course of ill-treatment and harassment by the applicants and the 1st accused. At this preliminary stage, after going through the materials, I am unable to accept the
BA:4714/18
6
contention of the learned counsel that the allegations levelled against the applicants are frivolous and vexatious. The expression "soon before death" is a relative term which is required to be construed in the context of specific circumstances of each case. Prima facie , there appears to be a perceptible nexus between the death of the deceased and the dowry related harassment inflicted on her.
It is made clear that expression of any opinion shall not be treated as an expression on merits of the case.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE
Dxy
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to accused persons facing dowry death charges.
Whether the term 'soon before death' under Section 304(B) IPC can be interpreted relatively based on case circumstances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Samunder Singh v. State of RajasthanReferred¶36
Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(1987) 1 SCC 466] · Who else cites this
State v. Jaspal Singh GillReferred¶36
State v. Jaspal Singh Gill [(1984) 3 SCC 555] · Who else cites this
Gajanand Agarwal v. State of OrissaReferred¶36
Gajanand Agarwal v. State of Orissa [2007(14) SCC 537] · Who else cites this
Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai ReddyReferred¶36
Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy [2013 (7) SCALE 15]
Nassirudin v. State of NCTReferred¶36
Nassirudin v. State of NCT [2014 (13) SCC 579] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
FOUSIA
JAMAL
THE STATE OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
