Chattisgarh High Court
Umakant Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 February, 2023
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 10523 of 2022
Umakant Sahu S/o Shri Sevan Lal Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village
Nara P.S. Mandir Hasaud Presently R/o Ganesh Chowk, Goverdhan Nagar
P.S. Khamtarai, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Khamtarai, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
----Non-applicant
For Applicant Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Shri Jitendra Nath
Nande, Advocate.
For State Shri Adil Minhaj, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
06/02/2023
1.
This is the First Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in connection with Crime
No.933/2022 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur
(C.G.) for the offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased Khilesh @ Sakshi Sahu
committed suicide by hanging herself on 27/10/2022 in her room by
locking the door from inside. Deceased was subjected to cruelty on
account of demand of dowry. Hence the offence was registered against
the applicant.
3. Learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the
incident took place in the intervening night of 26-27/10/2022 when the
deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. Dead body was seen
by independent witness landlord Santram. Thereafter, merg intimation
was lodged by him and during the course of enquiry, the statement of
witnesses were recorded, which is not permissible within the purview of
provisions of Section 174 of CrPC. He submits that so far as the merg
inquiry is concerned that could be done only with regard to finding out the
apparent cause of death. Thereafter, the investigating officer has made
investigation and recorded statement of the family members of the
deceased which is not permissible in view of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pedda Narayana and others vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1975 (4) SCC 153 Para 11. He further
goes on to submit that thereafter the FIR was registered on 06/11/2022
and the statement of other witnesses were recorded which is verbatim
with the statement recorded during course of merg inquiry. He further
submits that even the 'comma' and 'full stop' has not been changed,
therefore, there is no sanctity of the statement recorded after the FIR by
the investigating officer. He further submits that it is a case where
investigating officer has not investigated the matter in a fair manner and
rather demanded money from the applicant and other family members
and when the demand was not fulfilled, all the family members were
implicated in the crime. He submits that the allegations which are leveled
under Section 161 of CrPC is omnibus in nature and which would not
attract the provisions of Section 304 B of IPC and there was no demand
as such made by the applicant which led to commission of suicide by the
deceased. The investigation is complete, charge-sheet against the
present applicant is filed, however, it has been mentioned in the charge-
sheet that the investigation against other co-accused is going on. So,
sword of investigation is hanging upon the other co-accused and the
investigating officer can take advantage of the powers and implicate any
other family members. He submits that one independent witness has
categorically stated that the relationship between the applicant and
deceased was cordial and he has not seen any quarrel between them
and the deceased were residing separately from the family members. He
further submits that though a suicide note was recovered but the suicide
note does not contain the name of the present applicant and even
otherwise, the handwriting expert report is also not a part of the charge-
sheet which would suggest that the alleged suicide note was written by
the deceased. The applicant is in jail since 06/11/2022, therefore, he may
be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposes the bail
application and submits that even if some statements were recorded
during the course of merg enquiry, that would not vitiate the entire
prosecution case because after registration of FIR, statement of several
witnesses have been recorded and the statement of her father Kaliram
Sahu and mother Gangabai Sahu were recorded on 06/11/2022 and in
their statement, they have categorically leveled allegation with regard to
demand of dowry against the present applicant. He further submits that
the statement of Gopesh Kumar Sahu brother-in-law, Anju Sahu sister
and Suryakant and Chandrakant, brothers of the deceased and one
independent witness Mahendra Kumar Sahu was recorded on
05/01/2023 which indicates involvement of the present applicant in
commission of the crime and at this stage, the veracity of the statement,
when none of the witnesses have been examined before the trial Court,
can not be looked into and from the investigation conducted by the
prosecution, prima facie case under Section 304 B of IPC is made out.
Even otherwise, he submits that the suicide note has been sent for
handwriting expert and as soon as the report is received, appropriate
legal recourse will be taken. He further submits that according to Section
113 B of Evidence Act there is a presumption of dowry death against the
present applicant. He further submits that marriage took place sometime
in the month of June 2020 and she committed suicide in a short span of
two years and two months, therefore, in view of facts and circumstances,
evidence collected, the application is liable to be rejected. He further
submits that since the investigation against other co-accused is still going
on and they have not been arrested, a supplementary charge-sheet will
be filed against them, so in all prevailing facts and circumstances,
application may be rejected.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considering their rival
submissions.
6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence
collected, submissions of the counsels, at this stage I am not inclined to
allow the bail application. Accordingly, bail application is dismissed.
However, if the trial is not concluded within a period of four months,
applicant may repeat his prayer for grant of bail.
Sd/-
Sachin Singh Rajput
Judge
Kamde
