HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.671 OF 2022
ORDER:-
This criminal petition under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed to enlarge the petitioner on
bail in the event of his arrest.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.326 of 2021
of Coringa Police Station, Kakinada.
3. A case under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short 'I.P.C') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'D.P' Act) was registered against
the petitioner in the above crime.
4. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased is the
legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein. Their marriage was
solemnized on 21.10.2021. The petitioner is an employee
working in Delhi Airport as CISF Constable. Immediately after
the marriage, the petitioner went to Delhi to attend his duties.
Thereafter, he started harassing the deceased who is his wife
over phone making illegal demands for additional dowry stating
that the dowry that was given to him at the time of marriage is
insufficient. So, it is stated that unable to bear the said
harassment, the deceased committed suicide on 15.12.2021 and
died. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has committed
the aforesaid offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC.
2
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner and the deceased lived together after their marriage
only for two days and thereafter, the petitioner went to Delhi to
join duty. He would submit that even as per the case of the
prosecution, there is no allegation that the petitioner has
physically harassed the deceased and that there is no possibility
of harassing the deceased physically also as they lived together
for two days only after their marriage. He would submit that
even though it is stated that the petitioner has harassed the
deceased over phone by making illegal demands for additional
dowry, the details of the said phone etc., are not given.
Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated in this case and he is innocent and thereby prayed
for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.
He would submit that a clear allegation is made in the F.I.R
which is lodged by the brother of the deceased that the
petitioner used to harass the deceased over phone making illegal
demands for additional dowry stating that the dowry that was
given to him at the time of his marriage is insufficient and that
unable to bear the said harassment, the deceased committed
suicide and died. He would submit that the details of the phone
numbers etc., are clearly mentioned in the F.I.R and the
contention that no such phone number is given is not correct.
3
He would submit that investigation in this case is at the initial
stage. He would submit that as it is a case of dowry death
punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, the petitioner is not
entitled for grant of anticipatory bail and thereby prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
8. The material facts relating to marriage between the
petitioner and the deceased are not in dispute. Admittedly, the
marriage between the petitioner and the deceased took place on
21.10.2021
and they lived for two days together. Thereafter, the petitioner left for Delhi to join duty. As can be seen from the contents of the F.I.R, a clear allegation is made that the petitioner used to harass the deceased over phone making illegal demands for additional dowry stating that the dowry that was given to him at the time of his marriage is insufficient. It is stated that unable to bear the said harassment that the deceased committed suicide and died on 15.12.2021. Therefore, the said facts of the case prima facie constitute an offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. As the death of the deceased is dowry death, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies to the present facts of the case. As per Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry 4 death. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case and in view of grave nature of the offence which relates to dowry death of a woman, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
9. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner rendered by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2011 in the case of Gurcharan Singh vs. The State of Punjab has no application to the present facts of the case. That was a case relating to criminal appeal challenging the conviction of the accused therein after full-fledged trial. Further, the contention of the petitioner that the ingredients of Section 107 of I.P.C are to be satisfied to constitute an offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C is totally misconceived. Section 107 of I.P.C pertains to ingredients relating to offence of abetment to commit suicide which is punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. Therefore, the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit as this is a case of dowry death punishable under section 304-B of IPC.
10. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date : 31.03.2022 KA 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CRIMINAL PETITION No.671 OF 2022 Date : 31.03.2022 KA