The High Court rejected a pre-arrest bail petition filed by in-laws implicated in the death of a victim due to dowry demand. The court held that incriminating witness statements indicating active participation in murder made out no case for bail.
Prayer for pre-arrest bail stands 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.
ABLAPL NO.7033 OF 2019
04 14.08.2019
The petitioners in this case having been implicated in Basudevpur P.S. Case No.145 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.252 of 2019, pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Basudevpur have filed this petition for their release on pre-arrest bail. Though the case was preliminarily registered for the offences under Sections 498-A/323/307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act but subsequently, it was turned to Section 302 of I.P.C as the victim succumbed to the burn injuries in course of treatment.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State so also learned counsel for the informant.
The allegation of the prosecution is that the victim was subjected to cruelty by her husband and the petitioners who are in-laws, for non-fulfillment of illegal demand of dowry and for the same, they stated to have done the deceased to death.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the victim was staying separately with her husband soon after the marriage and they had no relationship with the petitioners. In such premises, even though omnibus allegation has been made against the present petitioners indicating the fact that they meted the victim with torture for non-fulfillment of illegal demand of dowry and did her to death, the petitioners in this case deserve to be released pre-arrest on bail. More so, when there is no chance of their absconding and/or tampering with the evidence if the petitioners are released on pre-arrest bail.
However, the same is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the informant with the submissions that there is material to indicate that the petitioners along with others for nonfulfillment of their illegal demand of dowry, in furtherance of their common intention did the deceased to death. The offence alleged being heinous and serious in nature, there is every chance of their
2
absconding and/or tampering with the evidence if released on prearrest bail. Hence, the petitioners do not deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail.
Learned counsel for the State drawing to the notice of the court to the statements of the witnesses of the co-villagers namely, Amulya Mahallik and Ratikanta Mahallik who rescued the victim from burning and shifted her to the nearby hospital, stated that the deceased disclosed before them that she was immolated by her husband and in-laws, submits that materials are there indicating the fact that the petitioners’ involvement in a charge under Section 302/34 of I.P.C., hence they do not deserve to be released on prearrest bail as the petitioners murdered the deceased for nonfulfillment of their illegal demand of dowry is prima-facie emerged from the materials on record.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials placed, particularly, the statement of the aforesaid witnesses which is very much incriminating to the petitioners and the circumstances in which the deceased was allegedly done to death and the role ascribed to the petitioners in commission of the crime, heinousness and seriousness of the offence, punishment provided on conviction I am of the view that the petitioners have made out no case for pre-arrest bail.
Accordingly, their prayer for pre-arrest bail stands rejected.
…………………… S.Pujahari, J.
lnb
3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to petitioners implicated in murder.
Whether material on record incriminating petitioners indicated risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
Whether the nature of the offence and circumstances warranted rejection of bail.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners (in-laws)
The State
S. Pujahari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
