Avinash Kumar @ Avinash Singh @ ... vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4140 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 37184 of 2020
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2020 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya
 ======================================================

Avinash Kumar @ Avinash Singh @ Abhinash Singh, age- 34 years, Male, Son of Late Ajay Kumar Singh, Resident of Village-Bhagwanpur, Suryamandal, PS-Bodh Gaya, District-Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

 For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Advocate with
                                  Ms. Priyadarshini Sinha, Advocate
 For the State           :        Mr. Binod Kumar No. 2, APP
 For the Informant       :        Ms. Smriti Prasad, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-08-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel

for the petitioner; Mr. Binod Kumar No. 2, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State and Ms. Smriti Prasad, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Bodhgaya PS Case No. 229 of 2020 dated 06.07.2020, instituted

under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is of killing the

sister of the informant, who was the wife of the petitioner, due

to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37184 of 2020 dt.17-08-2021

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the case has been instituted under misconception. It was submitted

that the marriage took place in the year 2014 and though there is

allegation of demand of dowry, but no complaint was made before

any authority prior to this case about such demand and further,

that the same will also be falsified from the fact that in the year

2017, the petitioner had bought a land jointly in the name of his

wife and mother and there is no allegation in the FIR, which is of

the year 2020, that there was any demand of money for buying the

said plot. It was submitted that had there been any demand of

dowry then there was no occasion for the petitioner to buy the plot

in the name of his wife without taking money from the family of

his wife. Learned counsel submitted that the couple has a five

years old daughter and all the more reason that such incident

could not occur, knowing fully well that for proper care and

upbringing of the minor child, presence of the mother is of utmost

importance. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased was, in

fact, bringing money to the family by working as teacher. It was

submitted that there was some frustration and depression in the

deceased as she had got a certificate of B.Ed. from some

University in the State of Rajasthan of the year 2018, but when the

petitioner had got it verified from the University, it was found that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37184 of 2020 dt.17-08-2021

the same was fake. It was submitted that because she had got the

same after giving money to an agent, she was insisting that she be

allowed to obtain employment on the basis of such certificate,

taking the stand that everybody was doing so and nobody was

getting caught. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, in

fact, was very supportive of the family of the deceased as he

was taking care of the widow sister of the deceased and the son

of the informant himself. Summing up his arguments, learned

counsel submitted that the informant has later realized his

mistake and has filed compromise petition before the court

below that due to confusion the case had been lodged.

6. Learned counsel submitted that it has come during

investigation that body of the deceased was found hanging from

the ceiling fan which obviously indicates that she had committed

suicide as in the postmortem report no other injury on any part of

the body has been found which is impossible since if she had been

forcibly hanged from the fan, there would have been signs of

resistance, which have not been found. Further, it was submitted

that the five years old daughter of the petitioner has also stated

during investigation that the petitioner, whose house it at Bodh

Gaya, had gone to his place of work at Gaya, when the incident

occurred.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37184 of 2020 dt.17-08-2021

7. Learned counsel further submitted that the

postmortem report reveals that death was due to hanging which

has also been supported by the witnesses during investigation and

no other injury on the body has been found. It was submitted that

the word used in the postmortem is that death is due to

strangulation, but cause of strangulation is actually hanging as

only a faint dark brown ligature mark is found above the thyroid

running upwards and had there been forceful strangulation then

there would have been some external injury as it not possible that

the deceased would have allowed anyone to forcibly strangulate

her without offering resistance.

8. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that the

postmortem report does not disclose any bodily injury on the

deceased except for ligature mark around the neck.

9. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that he

has filed a compromise as he was confident that his sister was not

murdered and the petitioner is innocent. She also took a stand that

such compromise was not under any duress and was voluntary

after coming to know of the truth.

10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the

Court finds that the postmortem report simply disclosing death Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37184 of 2020 dt.17-08-2021

due to hanging without any other injury on the body, as also the

fact that there is a five years old daughter and there being no

complain in the past and the deceased also working as a teacher

bringing money to the family and most importantly, the informant

himself filing a compromise stating that due to confusion and

anger, the case was filed and there being material to indicate that a

fake degree showing the deceased to have passed B.Ed. may also

suggest of the deceased not being in a normal frame of mind,

persuades the Court to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.

11. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender

before the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioner

be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-

(twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each

to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya

in Bodhgaya PS Case No. 229 of 2020, subject to the conditions

laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 and further, (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative

of the petitioner and (ii) that the petitioner shall co-operate with

the Court and police/prosecution. Failure to co-operate shall lead

to cancellation of his bail bonds.

12. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any

violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner, to Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37184 of 2020 dt.17-08-2021

the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate

action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner.

                     13.     The     petition      stands     disposed         of   in   the

           aforementioned terms.


                                                (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR
U
T