Justice Prabhaut Kumar Jha rejected bail for the deceased's husband alleging torture and injuries in a dowry death case but directed enlargement of the deceased's brother-in-law on bail.
Bail rejected for Petitioner No.1; Petitioner No.2 directed to be enlarged on bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.39659 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -63 Year- 2013 Thana -GOPALPUR District- BHAGALPUR
====================================================== 1. DHARAMENDRA SAH @ DHARMENDRA SAH 2. Rabindra Sah @ Ravindra Sah @ Ravin Sah .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
3 29-11-2016 Heard both sides.
The petitioners seek bail in Gopalpur P.S. case No.
63 of 2013 under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The mother of the deceased alleged that her daughter
was married to petitioner No.1, Dharmendra Sah, in the year 2010 but her husband and other family members were always torturing her. On 08.03.2013, Pushpa Singh, Pramukh of Kochadhaman block, informed the informant that her daughter was killed.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no evidence to show that petitioners killed the daughter of the informant. The petitioners are brother and husband of the deceased. They never demanded any dowry nor tortured the deceased. The post mortem report does not show any external injury and viscera was kept preserved.
Considering the fact that petitioner No.1,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39659 of 2016 (3) dt.29-11-2016
2/2
Dharamendra Sah @ Dharmendra Sah is the husband of deceased, there is allegation against him that he was torturing his wife to different sorts of torture, post mortem report shows many abrasions on different parts of the body of deceased and viscera was kept preserved for forensic examination, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
So far as case of petitioner No.2 is concerned, he is brother-in-law of the deceased, no specific allegation is made against him and similarly situated accused person have already been granted bail.
Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation made against the petitioner No.2, the petitioner No.2, namely, Rabindra Sah @ Ravindra Sah @ Ravin Sah is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions JudgeNaugachia, Bhagalpur, in S.T. No. 19 of 2016, arising out of Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 63 of 2013.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
BKS/-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the husband and brother-in-law of the deceased alleging dowry-related death under Section 304 IPC.
Whether distinguishing allegations against one petitioner warrant bail for another similarly situated accused.
Whether post-mortem findings and allegations of torture influence the bail decision in a Section 304B case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dharamendra Sah @ Dharmendra Sah
Rabindra Sah @ Ravindra Sah @ Ravin Sah
The State of Bihar
Prabhaut Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
