The Patna High Court rejected a bail application filed by a husband accused of setting his wife on fire leading to her death. The court held that the gravity of the offence precluded bail despite allegations of FIR delay and inconsistencies in the initial statement.
The prayer for bail of the petitioner is 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.52414 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -184 Year- 2017 Thana -CHANPATIA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH)
======================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Satyendra Prasad
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER
3 08-01-2018 Heard the counsels for the parties.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Chanpatiya
P.S. Case No. 184/2017 dated 24.05.2017 which was initially instituted for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, but later charge sheet was submitted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner is the husband of the deceased. One Lal Bahadur Mahto, father of the deceased, has lodged the F.I.R. alleging that on 24.05.2017, he was informed by the petitioner that the deceased has been burnt by fire and is being treated in M.J.K. Hospital, Bettiah. When he went to see his daughter, she is said to have told the informant that the petitioner set her on fire because she had not prepared food of his choice. Later, the deceased died in the emergency ward of the hospital.
Hence, the aforesaid F.I.R.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52414 of 2017 (3) dt.08-01-2018
2/2
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the death took place on 24.05.2017, but the F.I.R., which was lodged on the same day, was seen by the Chief Judicial Magistrate after about four days. He has further submitted that paragraph 12 of the case diary contains the statement of the deceased, in which she has not stated anything about her being tortured for dowry, but in the aforesaid statement she has spoken about her being set on fire by her husband (petitioner) for not making food of his choice. It has further been submitted that if the aforesaid statements of the deceased were true, that only should have been the basis of the F.I.R. In this background, it has been suggested that the delay of four days in sending the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate creates doubt about the correctness of the prosecution version.
These grounds cannot be appreciated at this stage where the allegation squarely is against the petitioner, being the husband, of setting the deceased on fire leading to her death.
Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
The prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)
Rakhi U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a case involving allegations of dowry-related murder.
Whether the delay in forwarding the case diary and alleged discrepancies in the deceased's statement warrant granting bail.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Brijesh Mahto
The State of Bihar
Ashutosh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
