HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21444 of 2011 Nakshatra Pal Applicant Vs. State of U.P. Opp.Party Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.
Heard Sri Govind Saran Hajela, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the applicant Nakshatra Pal with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 725 of 2011 under section 304-B I.P.C. and ¾ D.P.Act, Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly.
The facts, in brief, of this case are that FIR has been lodged by Suresh Chandra at police station Faridpur on 22.5.2011 at 6.30 P.M. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 22.5.2011. The applicant and 4 other co-accused are named in FIR. It is alleged that marriage of the deceased Smt. Baijanti was solemnized on 8.12.2010 with the applicant according to the Hindu rights, but the in-laws of the deceased were not satisfied with the gifts given to them in marriage. The first informant was apprised by the deceased that they were harassing her mentally and physically, they were demanding Rs. 5 lakhs to purchase a plot, it was also told by the deceased that if the demand of dowry is not fulfilled she would be killed at any time. On 5.5.2011, the deceased had come to the house of first informant along with her husband. On 21.5.2010, the deceased was sent in the company of the applicant, after persuasion. On 22.5.2011 the first informant came to the house of the applicant where he came to know that the deceased was killed for dowry. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased had not sustained any ante mortem injury, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to ruptured ectopic pregnancy.
The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly, who rejected the same on 14.7.2011.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is husband of the deceased, the marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 10.12.2010. According to the FIR itself, no demand of dowry was made, it is alleged that the demand of Rs. 5 lakhs was made for purchase of a plot, it does not come under the definition of demand of dowry. After marriage no complaint has been made against the applicant and co-accused persons with regard to cruelty or demand of dowry. The deceased was always maintained as house wife in a cool and calm atmosphere. In the evening of 21.5.2011, all of a sudden, the deceased made complaint of severe stomach pain, immediately she was taken to Siddhi Vinayak Hospital in the morning of 22.5.2011 where she was admitted, the parents of the deceased were also called there, the condition of the deceased was deteriorating, the blood, glucose and other medicines were provided to her, she was advised by the doctor for immediate operation, on that a query made by the first informant, the doctor replied by saying that after operation it would be clear whether uterus to be removed or not, on that reply, the first informant and his wife Smt. Indrawati scolded the doctor and quarrelled. The applicant borne all the medical expenses of the treatment, the applicant and the first informant gave their consent in writing for operating the deceased, thereafter the first informant compelled the applicant to take the deceased to another hospital i.e. Ram Murti Hospital Bareilly, which was at a distance of about 30 Kms. from the Siddhi Vinayak Hospital, Bareilly, due to their unwanted interference the deceased could not be operated timely in Siddhi Vinayak Hospital, Bareilly and she died. The death of the deceased was natural because according to the post mortem examination report the deceased had not sustained any ante mortem injury she died due to ectopic pregnancy, it occurs when after fertilization the Zygote does not migrate to the uterus from fallopian tube and it develops in fallopian tube, consequently the fallopian tube ruptures. In the present case the right fallopian tube was enlarged, it was containing foetus , ultimately the tube was ruptured,therefore, no offence under section 304-B I.P.C.is made out. The applicant is in jail since 26.5.2011, he may be released on bail.
In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A.that in the present case, the deceased had died on 22.5.2011, the marriage of the deceased was performed with the applicant on 8.12.2010, the deceased had died within 6 months of her marriage. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased was pregnant. The demand of Rs.5 lakhs was made for purchasing the plot, the deceased was physically and mentally harassed,the death of the deceased was unnatural, which has occurred within 6 months of her marriage, the offence under section 304-B I.P.C.and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act is clearly made out, the applicant being the husband of the deceased is the main accused, he may not be released on bail.
In the present case according to the post mortem examination report, the cause of death was Haemorrhage and shock due to rupture of 'ectopic pregnancy' the condition of the genital organ shows that uterus was enlarged, right ovary was enlarged, right fallopian tube was enlarged containing foetus and has ruptured , in left ovary and Fallopian tube nothing abnormal was detected.
In this case it is necessary to consider 'Ectopic Pregnancy'. An ectopic pregnancy is a condition in which fertilized egg settles and grows in any location other than the inner lining of uterus . The vast majority of ectopic pregnancies are so-called tubal pregnancies and occur in the Fallopian Tube, however, they can occur in other locations, such as the ovary, cervix and abdominal cavity. A molar differs from an ectopic in that it is usually a mass of tissue derived from an egg with incomplete genetic information that grows in the uterus in a grape-like mass that can cause symptoms to those of pregnancy. The major health risk of ectopic pregnancy' is rupture leading to internal bleeding. The major reason for a poor outcome is failure to seek early medical attention. ectopic pregnancy remains the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in the first trimester of pregnancy.
Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant ,learned A.G.A.and the discussion made above, it appears that it is a case in which the death of the deceased was due to rupture of ectopic pregnancy, some times it occurs in case of the pregnancy and due to non-migration of Zygote (which develops after union of ovum and sperm) from fallopion tube to uterus and develops in fallopian tube, a developed Zygote is called Foetus, in a developing process it ruptures the wall of the fallopian tube, due to this rupture, profused bleeding takes place, in the present case also 3 litres fresh blood was found in the cavity of abdomen and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail.
Let the applicant Nakshtara Pal involved in case crime no. 725 of 2011 under Section 304-B I.P.C.and section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the conditions.
That the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence.
That he shall report to the court of C.J.M. concerned in the first week of each month to show his good conduct and behaviour till conclusion of the trial.
In case of default of any of the above mentioned conditions, the bail granted to the applicant shall be deemed cancelled and he shall be taken into custody forthwith.
Dated : September 30, 2011.
Su