Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1086/2019 on 6 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
6TH JANUARY, 2022
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1086 of 2019
Between:
Ravi Kumar. ...Applicant
and
State of Uttarakhand. ...Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Manish Bisht, learned
counsel holding brief of Mr.
Vipul Sharma, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. T.C. Agarwal, learned
Deputy Advocate General for
the State.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
The present Bail Application has been filed under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for
grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.307 of 2018,
registered with Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham
Singh Nagar for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304 B of
IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The informant Rajendra Kumar, father of the
deceased, lodged an FIR to the effect that the marriage of
his daughter, namely, Smt. Shivani, was solemnized with
the present applicant two years six months ago as per Hindu
rites. After marriage, the applicant started harassing and
torturing the deceased for the demand of dowry in the shape
of rupees one lakh and one motorcycle. When the said
demand was not fulfilled by the informant, the deceased was
harassed and tortured by the applicant. He committed mar-
peet with the deceased and grievously injured her. Due to
that reason, the informant brought back the deceased to his
house. After two months of that incident, the applicant came
to the house of the informant and took the deceased with
him. On 02.12.2018, the present applicant committed the
murder of the deceased due to non-fulfillment of demand of
dowry. The said First Information Report was registered at
17.05 hrs. on 05.12.2018.
3. Heard Mr. Manish Bisht, the learned counsel
holding brief of Mr. Vipul Sharma, the learned counsel for
the applicant and Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State.
4. Mr. Manish Bisht, the learned counsel for the
applicant, submitted that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in this matter; the FIR was lodged on
05.12.2018, whereas, the alleged incident took place on
02.12.2018; no offence under Section 304 B of IPC is made
out against him; he never demanded alleged dowry; no
independent witness, not even the neighbors are made
witness to substantiate the allegation of the said cruelty; the
post-mortem report clearly says that there was no external
injury on the dead body of the deceased and the cause of
death could not be ascertained; the applicant has no
criminal history and he is in custody since 20.12.2018.
5. On the other hand, Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned
Deputy Advocate General for the State, opposed the bail
application and submitted that during the investigation,
evidence are produced that the deceased was subjected to
cruelty for demand of dowry by the applicant-husband. He
further submitted that according to the viscera report,
Organo Chloro Insecticide poison was found in the body of
the deceased.
6. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR, is so long as
throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution
case, must depend upon a variety of factors which would
vary from case to case.
7. Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
confers very wide powers regarding bail. But, while granting
bail, the High Court is guided by the same considerations as
other court. That is to say, the gravity of the crime, the
character of the evidence and such other grounds are
required to be taken into consideration.
8. In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs.
Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the law in regard to grant or refusal of
bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should
exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a
matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a
detailed examination of evidence and elaborate
documentation of the merit of the case need not be
undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders
reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being
granted particularly where the accused is charged of having
committed a serious offence.
9. In the case of State of U.P. vs. Amarmani
Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that it is well settled that the matters to be considered
in an application for bail, are (i) whether there is any prima
facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had
committed the offence, (ii) nature and gravity of charge, (iii)
severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, (iv)
danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on
bail, (v) character, behavior, means, position and standing
of the accused, (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated,
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with, and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being
thwarted by grant of bail.
10. In determining whether to grant bail, both the
seriousness of the charge and the severity of the
punishment should be taken into consideration. While
dealing with an application for bail, there is a need to
indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie considering
why bail is being granted particularly where an accused is
charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order
dehors reasons suffers from non-application of mind as
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram
Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh and others,
(2002) 3 SCC 598.
11. A ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (N.C.T.) of
Delhi and another, 2018 (1) CCSC 117 is that in serious
crimes, the mere fact that the accused is in custody for more
than one year, may not be a relevant consideration to
release the accused on bail.
12. Undoubtedly, the applicant got married to the
deceased before two years six months from the death of the
deceased and within seven years of the marriage, the
deceased died under unnatural circumstances. During the
investigation, evidence are produced that the deceased was
subjected to cruelty soon before her death for demand of
dowry by the applicant. At this stage, the presumption of the
provision of Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
attracts against the applicant. It would be inappropriate to
discuss the evidence in depth at this stage. At this stage,
detailed appreciation of evidence shall affect the merit of the
case. But, from the perusal of the evidence, collected during
the investigation, it prima facie appears that the applicant
was involved in this crime. No reason is found to implicate
the applicant.
13. Therefore, there is no force in the submissions of
the learned counsel for the applicant and no good ground
has been made out for enlarging the applicant on bail at this
stage. The bail application is liable to be rejected.
Consequently, the bail application is rejected accordingly.
14. It is clarified that the observations made regarding
the bail application are limited to the decision of this bail
application, in the light of the facts provided by the parties
at this stage, as to whether the bail application should be
allowed or not. The said observations shall not effect the
trial of the case.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 6th January, 2022
Neha
