The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the petitioner, accused of committing the offence of dowry death, observing that it was doubtful that any dowry was demanded in the case since the parties got married under the Chief Minister Mass Marriage Scheme.
Brief Facts:
The present bail application was filed by the applicant in a case registered under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Behjoi, District-Sambhal, during the pendency of the trial.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that though the applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named and charge-sheeted accused, he is liable to be enlarged on bail. It is then submitted that the applicant is innocent. He has falsely been implicated in the aforementioned case crime number. Further, it was submitted that the deceased was a short-tempered lady, and she had taken the extreme step of terminating her life by consuming a chemical substance. It was submitted that the allegations made in the FIR regarding the demand for a motorcycle and additional dowry to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- are vague and bald allegations. The same is devoid of material particulars and has also not been explained in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state opposed the player for bail and submitted that since the applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named and charge-sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The marriage of the applicant was solemnised with the deceased on 25.06.2021, whereas the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings occurred on 21.06.2023 in the house of the applicant, i.e. within 7 years of marriage. By virtue of the above, the burden is upon the applicant himself to not only explain the manner of occurrence but also his innocence in terms of Sections 106 and 113-B of the Evidence Act. However, the applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden up to this stage. Applicant cannot claim parity from named and charge-sheeted co-accused, i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased, who have been enlarged on bail. It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that no good ground for interference by this Court is made out. As such, the present application for bail is liable to be rejected.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the marriage of the deceased was solemnised with the applicant under the scheme launched by the State Government, and thus, prima facie, it cannot be said that demand of dowry was ever raised by the applicant or any of his family members. Further, while considering the case, the court took into account the fact that the co-accused had been granted bail, the incident seemed to be a case of suicide, the autopsy revealed no external or internal injuries on the deceased's body, there were no prior criminal complaints against the accused for dowry demands or cruelty before the death of the deceased.
Further the court referred to the decision in the case of Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal vs State of Maharashtra, wherein the Supreme Court held that a detailed elaboration of evidence has to be avoided at the stage of grant/rejection of bail/anticipatory bail.
The decision of the Court:
The court granted bail to the petitioner.
Case Title: Satyendra vs State of U.P.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Rajeev Misra
Case No.: CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28051 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Safiullah
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
