Allahabad High Court
Ratnavali Tiwari vs State Of U.P. on 13 April, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52343 of 2022
Applicant :- Ratnavali Tiwari
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav,Ruchi Mishra,Santosh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Piyush Tripathi
With
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50001 of 2022
Applicant :- Shivdhakad @ Sudhakar Tiwari
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav,Abhinav Mishra,Ruchi Mishra,Santosh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Piyush Tripathi
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant / complainant.
By means of these applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicants Ratnavali Tiwari and Shivdhakad @ Sudhakar Tiwari, who are involved in Case Crime No. 118 of 2022, under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Obra, district Sonbhadra, seek enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
As per prosecution case, in brief, informant, who is father of Pinky (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), lodged a first information report on 30.06.2022 against Shubham Tiwari, Sudhakar Tiwari, Ratnavali and Roopam, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased-Pinky, respectively, with the allegation inter alia that marriage of his daughter Pinky aged about 22 years was solemnized on 18.02.2022 with co-accused Shubham Tiwari. Since Pinky was his only daughter, therefore, he lavishly solemnized her marriage and also gave sufficient dowry as per his capacity. It is also alleged that he after mortgaging his field, took loan and gave Rs. 12 lacs to the accused persons for purchasing Ertiga car. Even then, the accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage of his daughter and they started harassing his daughter after 4-5 days of her marriage. There was consistent demand of Rs. 02 lacs as additional dowry. On 29.06.2022 at about 10:00 P.M., his daughter Pinky phoned her mother and by weeping requested to save her life, otherwise, she will be killed by co-accused Shubham and her family members. His wife immediately gave information to Mani Shakar Pathak (brother-in-law of informant), who along-with his wife and daughter, immediately reached there but husband and mother-in-law of the deceased were not opening the door. After great effort, they opened the door and while entering into the house, they saw that Pinky was vomiting and told them that at the instigation of her father-in-law (Sudhakar) and sister-in-law (Roopam), her husband and mother-in-law administered poison to her. The effort was made to took her to the hospital but she died.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that as per the prosecution case, Mani Shankar Pathak along with wife Sarita and daughter Anjali reached at the spot on the information of mother of the deceased, who told them that at the instigation of her father-in-law and sister-in-law, her husband and mother-in-law administered poison to her but Sarita and Anjali in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. did not make allegation against the father-in-law (Sudhakar) of the deceased whereas their statements with regard to role assigned to husband and mother-in-law of the deceased are intact. It is next argued that prosecution has not clarified that how poison was administered to the deceased. Referring the alleged telephonic conversation between the deceased and her husband, which has been filed as Annexure No. 9 to the bail application, it is submitted that in fact, the deceased was not happy with her marriage, therefore, she committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the applicant Sudhakar (father-in-law) of the deceased was not present in the house at the time of incident. The applicants do not have any criminal history to their credit. Lastly, it is submitted that the accused-applicant Ratnavali is languishing in jail since 01.07.2022 and accused-applicant Sudhakar is languishing in jail since 09.09.2022 and there is no chance of the applicants fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicants reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in F.I.R. by contending that viscera report corroborate the prosecution case. Offence is heinous in nature.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is proximate link between the harassment of the deceased, complaint by deceased to her mother and the incident in question, because on 29.06.2022 at 10:00 P.M., the deceased made a phone call to her mother making complaint that her life is in danger and her mother immediately informed Mani Shankar Pathak, who in turn, without wasting any time, reached at the spot along-with his wife and daughter and they saw that the deceased, she was vomiting and she told about administering poison to her by her husband and mother-in-law at the instigation of her father-in-law and sister-in-law as noted above. The deceased died her unnatural death in the matrimonial home within a short span of four months. In the viscera report, "aluminium phosphide" poison has been found. Specific allegation has been levelled against the applicants. Under the facts of the case, as on date, presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act shall be drawn against the applicants. So far as alleged telephonic conversation between the deceased and her husband is concerned, I find that a typed copy of conversation between two persons have been filed as Annexure no.9 to the bail application which is not the part of case diary and in the absence of certificate issued under sub-Section 4 of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, the same cannot be considered at this stage by this Court in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anvar P.B. Vs. P.K. Basheer and others, (2014) 10 SCC 473. So far as plea of alibi of father-in-law and his defence that he had not instigated the co-accused to administer poison to deceased are concerned, the same is a matter of proof before the trial Court in accordance with law.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicants and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicants on bail.
Accordingly, the bail applications of the applicants are rejected.
It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.
Order Date :- 13.4.2023
Shubham
