In a bail application filed by an accused charged with dowry death, as per Sections 304B, 201, 34 IPC, the court rejected the plea, citing the gravity of the offence and lack of fit case for bail.
bail application of the accused Dimple dismissed.
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.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| BA1 No. 1671 of 2021 Hon’ble R.C. Kh u lbe, J. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vivek Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Shivangi Gangwar, learned Brief Holder for the State. Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal, learned counsel for the informant. Accused-Dimple, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime No. 111 of 2021 under Sections 304B, 201, 34 IPC registered at P.S. Jhabrera District Haridwar has sought her release on bail. The informant Vikas Kumar submitted information on 09.03.2021 with P.S. Jhabrera; on the basis of said information the FIR was lodged. It is argued by the learned Senior Advocate for the accused that she has falsely been implicated ; she is married daughter-in-law who used to reside in another village; she has no concern with the crime; she is languishing in jail since 10.03.2021; there is no evidence against her and; is ready to furnish the sureties. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate for the informant as well as learned State Counsel opposed for bail. It is admitted fact that no information was given by in-laws to the parents of the deceased regarding the death as per the counter affidavit filed by the State; although, the accused is married but as per the evidence collected during investigation, she was very much present on the fateful day; earlier the deceased filed a complaint before ACJM, Saharanpur under Section 498A, 376, 323, 504, |
| 506/ 34 IPC and under Section 3/ 4 of the |
|---|
| D.P. Act wherein in para no. 2 she has |
| clearly stated that Jitendra who was the |
| friend of her husband used to commit |
| sexual offence with her as per the |
| instruction of her husband Rahul; in para 3 |
| she also stated that accused used to |
| torture her and left her in her parental house. Neither the husband nor the family |
| members of the deceased informed about |
| the death of the deceased to her parents and they had cremated her body without informing anyone. Looking into the gravity of offence it is not a fit case for bail at this stage. The bail application stands dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. |
| ( R.C. Kh u lbe, J.) 0 4 .1 0 .2 0 2 1 Parul |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail application of the accused charged under Sections 304B, 201, 34 IPC should be allowed.
Whether the nature and gravity of the offence precludes the grant of bail at this stage.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dimple
R.C. Kh_ulbe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
