Uttarakhand High Court
BA2/110/2021 on 7 December, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
BA2 No.110 of 2021
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Mr. A.R. David, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned B.H. for the
State.
The second bail application has been moved
on behalf of the accused-Vikender Singh Rawat in
connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 3 of 2019,
Under Sections 498-A & 304-B of I.P.C. and
Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at
Revenue Circle/ Patwari Circle Banelsyun, Tehsil-
Pauri, District-Pauri Garhwal.
The first bail application has been dismissed
by the Court vide order dated 19.06.2020.
It is argued that the accused has been falsely
implicated; he is languishing in jail since
06.12.2019; earlier short term bail was granted to
the applicant, but he did not misuse the conditions
as imposed by the trial court; there is no evidence
against him; he is ready to furnish the sureties and
may be granted bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State
opposed for bail.
When the bail application was dismissed on
19.06.2020 at that time the trial court did not record
the statements of witnesses; as per the record, the
prosecution has produced four witnesses before the
trial court; the statements of the above witnesses are
on record. The informant-Ramesh Singh is the
brother of the deceased, who firstly submitted an
information with the Revenue Circle; accordingly,
FIR was lodged; he appeared as PW-1 before the
trial court; as per his statement, firstly, he received
the information regarding the demand of dowry,
when his sister consumed poison, which shows that
earlier he did not receive any information about it;
the statement of the father of the deceased recorded
as PW3, he clearly stated that the accused did not
make any demand from him; he did not pay any
medical expenses regarding the deceased; as per his
statement the accused used to demand dowry from
his daughter.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the
State that the burden of proof lies upon the accused,
as per the presumption.
The Court is not convinced with the
arguments made by the learned counsel for the State
regarding the burden of proof; the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Satvir Singh vs. State of
Punjab reported in (2001) 8 SCC 633 clearly held
that in paragraph no.20.
'Prosecution, in a case of offence under Section
304B IPC cannot escape from the burden of proof
that the harassment or cruelty was related to the
demand for dowry and also that such cruelty or
harassment was caused "soon before her death". The
word "dowry" in Section 304B has to be understood
as it is defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961. That definition reads thus:
"2. In this Act, dowry means any property or
valuable security given or agreed to be given either
directly or indirectly-
(a) by one party to marriage to the other party to the
marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by
any other person, to either party to the marriage or
to any other person;
at or before or any time after the marriage in
connection with the marriage of the said parties, but
does not include dower or mahr in the case of
persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
applies.'
From the perusal of the paragraph number 21
of judgment (supra), it is clear that there must be
some specific allegation regarding the demand of
dowry before the death.
In the present matter, it is not clear that, when
the accused made demand of dowry and tortured the
deceased, the words "soon before her death" has
been used in the Legislature, there should be a
perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry-
related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her while
in the present matter the evidence is silent what kind
of the dowry demand was raised by the accused.
Although, it is a matter of evidence, at the time of
hearing the bail application the Court cannot asses
the evidence; the accused has already served more
than two years; it will take time to conclude the
trial; accordingly, without making any comment on
the merits, it is a fit case for bail at this stage.
The bail application is thus, allowed and the
applicant is directed to be released on bail on his
executing a personal bond and furnishing two
reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the Court concerned.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed
of.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
07.12.2021
BS
