On Thursday, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to husband who been charged for dowry death after examining the evidence on record and taking into note that the time he has been in jail makes up for an for an adequate fraction of the whole rigorous punishment.

CASE FACTS

The petitioner herein has been charged for dowry death and the trial for the same is under process. It was the case of the petitioner that one odd day when he was out to drop his niece to airport he found his wife dead on his arrival to home. He has been under the custody since then from 17th October 2018 which was two days after the incident. His five bail applications have been rejected previously.

Learned Counsel of the petitioner submitted that husband and wife were happily living. He has reacted all natural after he found her dead. He did informed her parents and called them there. There was no discord and dowry demand. His bank statements had been submitted in the Court which revealed that he has been regularly depositing money into her account.The Counsel pointed that in the first recorded statement of the father of the deceased wife there has been no such allegations. Only fingers have been pointed was against the said niece of the petitioner whom he blamed for creating misunderstanding among the couple.

It was only later did he change his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

The trial in the case is yet to commence. The State Counsel sumitted that the statement by her family members made out a case of dowry death. The chargesheet filed showed some fresh injuries on the body relying upon Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 dowry death has been presumed.

COURT FINDINGS AND VERDICT

The Court stated that at this stage of the case it is not for it to analyze the statements of the father, mother and sisters of the deceased in great detail. The question before it is whether the Petitioner ought to be released on bail?

The facts show that the deceased passed away just under two years of marriage. The presumption in law under Section 113B of the IEA would apply. The documents filed on record also showed that he indeed booked an Ola cab on the fateful day and was not at home. The bank account statements show that he had been regularly depositing money in his wife’s account and there were withdrawals from the same as well.

The Court cited Savita v. State of Delhi in which is a case under Sections 498-A and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and since the accused had already been in jail for 27 months out of a total sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, the Supreme Court thought it fit to grant bail. Few other cases resembling the present case situtaion has been cited and the accused was granted bail in them for some reasons by the concerned court.

In view of the above, the Court observed that the application for bail has been moved during the COVID-19 lockdown and the trial is yet to begin though the investigation has already been completed. The Court said that the petitioner is educated and appears to be wellsettled and her said niece in question has been appearing before the Court and Police whenever called and he has already undergone imprisonment for around one year and seven months and is thus entitled to bail.

The Court though put certain condition to his bail.

The judgement has been delivered by Justice PRATHIBA M. SINGH on 21-05-2020.

Read Judgement Here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :