Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/549/2020 on 7 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
07TH JANUARY, 2021
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 549 of 2020
Between:
Govind Haldar ...Applicant
and
State of Uttarakhand. ...Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Sandeep Kothari.
Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Siddhartha Bisht,
learned Brief Holder for the
State.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
This 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.156 of 2018,
registered with Police Station Dineshpur, District Udham
Singh Nagar for the offence under Section 304 B of IPC
and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Mr. Sadhan Maitra, the informant and the father
of the deceased Smt. Pallavi, lodged an FIR to the effect
that the marriage of his daughter Smt. Pallavi was
solemnized with the present applicant on 04.12.2017 as
per Hindu rites. After marriage, the present applicant
demanded dowry in the shape of cash and jewellery. The
deceased was harassed and tortured by the applicant for
the demand of dowry. The deceased Smt. Pallavi died on
06.09.2018. The said First Information Report was
registered at 10:30 hours on 07.09.2018.
3. Heard Mr. Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel
for the applicant and Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, the learned
Brief Holder for the State.
4. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel for the
applicant, submitted that the applicant has been
implicated in this matter; the death of the deceased was
natural; the applicant did not demand any alleged dowry;
the deceased was not harassed or tortured by him;
according to the post-mortem report, the cause of death
could not ascertain and no external injury was found on
the body of the deceased; the applicant has no criminal
history and he is in custody since 10.09.2018.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, the
learned Brief Holder for the State, opposed the bail
application. He submitted that during the investigation,
evidence are produced that the deceased was subjected to
cruelty for demand of dowry in the shape of Rs,50,000/-
and jewellery. According to the viscera report, Organo
Chloro Insecticide poison was found in the body of the
deceased.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Undoubtedly, the applicant got married to the
deceased on 04.12.2017 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.
12. 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.
13. 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: 07.01.2022.
JKJ/Neha
