The Allahabad High Court while allowing the anticipatory bail application said that the influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them by detaining them in jail for some time. It is true, such powers are to be exercised in exceptional cases. The prosecution cannot be permitted to be converted into an arena to settle scores.
A Single Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc anticipatory bail application filed by Udit Arya.
The anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case registered under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station Ganga Nagar, District Meerut with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant as per Hindu rites on 13.12.2021. The applicant and other members of the family are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs 60 lakhs and a car as dowry. In the intervening period in the month of September, 2022, the deceased is stated to have undergone the abortion of the fetus she was carrying in her womb.
On Deepawali i.e 18.10.2022, the applicant is stated to have taken the daughter of the informant to his house. The applicant and other family members are stated to have beaten the daughter of the informant as such the informant had taken her to his house on 21.10.2022. The condition of the daughter of the informant deteriorated as a result of the injuries sustained on 21.10.2022. She is stated to have succumbed to the injuries on way to hospital on 22.10.2022.
Senior Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued at the outset that this is clear misuse of dowry laws as no case is made out against the applicant. There is not a whisper of complaint against the applicant or other family members before institution of the FIR.
Senior Counsel has stated that the deceased person was ill and was suffering from dengue and even the applicant transfused blood to her on 20.10.2022, the said transfusion certificate is filed to the affidavit filed with the bail application.
Senior Counsel has further stated that the platelets count of the deceased person had extremely come down to a level where blood transfusion was essential as the applicant had himself volunteered to do so.
Senior Counsel has also placed much reliance on the inquest report of the deceased person which indicates that there was no visible injury on the body of the deceased person.
Senior Counsel has also vehemently argued that as per the postmortem report, the cause of death was “septicaemia due to chronic illness of multiple organs involvement”.
Senior Counsel has stated that the cause of death is her illness and not the injuries inflicted by the applicant or any other family members. The prosecution story stands falsified on this ground only.
Senior Counsel has further stated that if such FIR is entertained by the Court, then there is no question for civil liberty left as such applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit.
Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on the statement of Dr Geetanjali Vohra, who happens to be family doctor of the informant, whereby she has categorically stated that the deceased person had acquired complications as a result of pregnancy she was having and her fetus in the womb had died after a period of six months of pregnancy.
Per contra, counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the statement of the informant recorded by the Investigating Officer categorically indicates that the fetus had expired in her womb and she was not subjected to treatment by the applicant and his family members as the said fetus remain dead for a period of ten days in her womb. The said negligent act speaks volume of the applicant having subjected the deceased person to cruelty.
“After hearing the rival contentions, going through the record, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and taking into note the very fact that the cause of death has been opined to be septicaemia due to chronic illness of multiple organs involvement and also that there was no complaint against the applicant or his family members before the death of the deceased person and also that no visible injury has been observed on the body of the deceased person internally or externally, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of “Sushila Agrawal Vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1”.
“The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court”, the Court observed while allowing the anticipatory bail application.
The Court ordered that,
Let the accused-applicant- Udit Arya be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv) that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.