In a criminal miscellaneous matter challenging bail in a dowry death case, the Patna High Court rejected the petitioner's bail prayer. The court held that circumstantial evidence of harassment followed by death makes the petitioner accountable unless rebutted, noting lack of external injury did not negate Section 113(B) Evidence Act implications.
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.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33347 of 2013 (6) dt.28-08-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.33347 of 2013
====================================================== Jaimrul Nesha, W/O Late Rashid Mian, R/O Village- Sonkar, Police Station Ramnagar, District- West Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Asha Devi, APP
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER
6 28-08-2014
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.
Deceased, Asfia Airam who was married a year ago with Zahid Ansari was found dead at her Sasural and for that her mother-in-law, the petitioner, two Nanad, namely, Manturiya Khatoon and Babia Khatoon, Nurudin Mian (cousin father-in-law) were arrayed as accused who, since before were demanding Rs.2 Lacs and a motorcycle in lieu of dowry. As the aforesaid demand was not fulfilled, deceased was done to death.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that all the four accused carry omnibus allegation and in the aforesaid background, a co-accused Manturiya Khatoon had already been granted anticipatory bail vide Cr.Misc.No. 47120/2013. It has also been submitted that petitioner on her own surrendered before the learned lower court and is under custody since 01.07.2013. It has also been submitted that petitioner has got separate residence and on account thereof, she does not happen to be accountable for the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33347 of 2013 (6) dt.28-08-2014
death of the deceased. It has further been submitted that during course of postmortem no external or internal injury has been found over the dead body. So submitted that petitioner is entitled for bail.
On the other hand, learned APP opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that both the Nanad are married, therefore, they have got a good ground at least for bail. Another accused is the cousin father-in-law. So far petitioner is concerned, she is motherin-law. It is evident from the statement of witnesses that the husband of the deceased at the time of occurrence was staying at foreign country. Deceased was staying with her mother-in-law, the petitioner.
From the FSL report, it is evident that she died of Sulphas, a poisonous pesticide and on account thereof, the death having been within 7 years, persistent demand of dowry, harassment, therefore death was otherwise than the natural circumstance attracts 113(B) of the Evidence Act and for that the petitioner is accountable unless and until rebutted by her. It has further been stated that from para-5, the place of occurrence, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has got separate identity is not at all found supported with.
As such, prayer for bail is rejected.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)
perwez
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be granted bail in a case involving dowry death under Section 304(B) of the Penal Code.
Whether the petitioner's surrender prior to arrest and alleged separate residence entitle her to bail despite prosecution evidence of persistent harassment.
Jaimrul Nesha
The State Of Bihar
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
