Uttarakhand High Court
Girish Tiwari vs State Of Uttarakhand on 30 July, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.1723 of 2021
Girish Tiwari ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. R.S. Sammal, Advocate appearing for the applicant through video conferencing.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Girish Tiwari is in judicial custody in FIR No.09
of 2020, under Section 304-B, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Chamba, District Tehri Garhwal.
He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. According to the case, the deceased Smt. Anjali and the
applicant were married three years prior to the lodging of the FIR, but
after marriage, the applicant and his family members harassed the
deceased for the demand of dowry. Finally, on 05.05.2020 the deceased
was killed by the applicant and the co-accused. An FIR was lodged to
that effect. The FIR also records that on the date of her death at about
1:15 PM the deceased had made a video call to her parents, at that time
she was normal and in the evening, they were informed that the deceased
committed suicide by hanging.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the statements
of the witnesses examined during trial, namely, PW1 Sandeep Gairola,
the brother of the deceased, PW2 Lakhi Ram Gairola, the father of the
deceased and PW3 Vrinda Devi, the mother of the deceased. It is argued
that the father of the deceased has been declared hostile and the
statements of other two witness even does not make out a case under
Section 304-B IPC. On the one hand, in the FIR it is stated that on the
date of incident, the deceased had made a video call to her parents
whereas PW3 in her statement tell that on that date in the video call the
deceased did not reveal anything. In addition to it, learned counsel
would also submit that the allegations of having demanded Rs.2 lakh by
the applicant for running his business cannot be termed as demand of
dowry because such financial dealings in relationship is normal to
maintain the relations. Learned counsel referred to the judgment in the
case of Appasaheb and another vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9
SCC721 and Modinsab Kasimsab Kanchagar Vs. State of Karnataka and
another,(2013) 4 SCC 551.
5. In the case of Appasaheb (supra), inter alia, observed that
"a demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for
meeting some urgent domestic expenses of for purchasing manure
cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is
normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does
not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in
Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants
as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting
domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential
ingredient of Section 304-B IPC viz. demand for dowry is not
established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained."
6. In the case of Modinsab (supra), a loan demanded from in-
laws for repaying the society dues was not held a demand in connection
with dowry.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that
the deceased died within four years of her marriage. There are
allegations of demand of dowry and it is not a case fit for bail.
8. In the instant case, according to the post mortem report,
there were ligature marks on the neck of the deceased. Viscera was
preserved. In his statement, the Doctor has opined that it might be a case
of death due to hanging.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant also invited the Court's
attention to the fact that in fact, in the viscera examination nothing
incriminating was found. Therefore, it is argued that the cause of death
was not ascertained.
10. Be it as it may, the fact remains that there was a ligature
marks on the neck of the deceased. The doctor tells that there is a
possibility that the deceased died due to hanging. In any case, it is a case
of death other than under normal circumstances. Although at one stage,
PW1 Sandeep Gairola has stated that the applicant demanded Rs.2 lakh
to start his business. Definitely, this statement would fall for scrutiny
because it is not a case that it was demanded at some later point of time
after marriage. PW3 Vrinda Devi, the mother of the victim has
categorically stated that soon after the marriage the deceased was
harassed and taunted and Rs.2 lakh were demanded. Was it a demand
made under some financial emergency? Was it a loan or was it really a
simplicitor demand for dowry? This Court refrains to make any
observation at this stage, it would definitely be considered during trial.
It is a specific case that soon after marriage Rs. 2 lakh were demanded.
11. Having considered all these factors, this Court is of the
view that it is not a case fit for bail and the bail application deserves to
be rejected.
12. The bail application is rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
30.07.2021
Jitendra
