The Allahabad High Court has granted conditional bail to Satyendra accused of cruelty on women and Dowry Prohibition Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajeev Misra passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Satyendra.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Satyendra, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Bahjoi, District-Sambhal during the pendency of trial.
Counsel for applicant submitted that name and charge sheet co-accused Gyan Chandra has been enlarged on bail by the Court, by order dated 27.10.2023.
Counsel for applicant further submitted that though applicant is the husband of deceased, a name and charge sheet accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail.
It is then submitted that the applicant is innocent. He has falsely been implicated in the aforementioned case crime number. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased on 25.06.2021 in the Social Benevolence Programme Organized by the State Government i.e Chief Minister scheme for mass management. On the above premise, he submits that there cannot be any issue with regard to the demand of dowry.
Referring to the post mortem report of the deceased, it is urged by the counsel for applicant that Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted autopsy of the body of deceased, did not find any external or internal anti-mortem injury on the body of deceased. The same speaks of the bona-fide of the applicant.
According to the FSL report of the deceased, the foreign chemical compound found in the body parts of the deceased sent for chemical examination is Aluminum Phosphate. As such, the death of deceased is, primafacie, a suicidal death.
In the submission of the counsel for applicant, the deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken an extreme step of terminating her life by consuming the aforementioned chemical substance. Attention of the Court was then invited to the FIR and on basis thereof, he submits that the allegations made in the FIR regarding demand of motorcycle and additional dowry to the tune of Rs 1,00,000/- are vague and bald allegations. The same are devoid of material particulars and have also not been explained in the statement of first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C either.
At this juncture, the counsel for applicant invited the attention of Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599, and on basis thereof, he submitted that since the allegations made in the FIR regarding demand of dowry and commission of cruelty upon deceased have not been substantiated by material particulars neither in the FIR itself nor in the statement of first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, therefore, prima-facie, the said allegations are liable to be ignored by the Court at this stage.
Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant has been in jail since 22.06.2023. As such, he has undergone more than one year and one months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized.
However, up to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, he submits that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.
Per contra, the A.G.A has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submitted that since the applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named and charge-sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by the Court. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased on 25.06.2021, whereas the occurrence giving rise to the criminal proceedings occurred on 21.06.2023 in the house of applicant i.e within 7 years of marriage. By virtue of above, the burden is upon the applicant himself to not only explain the manner of occurrence but also his innocence in terms of Sections 106 and 113-B of the Evidence Act. However, the applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden up to this stage. Applicant cannot claim parity from named and charge sheet co-accused i.e father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased, who have been enlarged on bail.
“Having heard, the counsel for applicant, the A.G.A for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that the marriage of deceased was solemnized with applicant under the scheme launched by the State Government as noted above, therefore, prima-facie, it cannot be said that demand of dowry was ever raised by the applicant or any of his family members, co-accused, who are similarly situate and circumstanced, have already been enlarged on bail, prima-facie the death of deceased is a suicidal death, the bona-fide of applicant is apparent from the fact that Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted autopsy of the body of deceased, did not find any external or internal anti-mortem injury on the body of deceased, the allegations made in the FIR qua the demand of dowry and commission of cruelty upon the deceased, on account of nonfulfillment of dowry, are vague and bald allegations inasmuch as, the same are devoid of material particulars, even in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, first informant has not explained as to how the demand of dowry was made by charge sheeted accused or cruelty was committed upon deceased, as such, the same are liable to be ignored by the Court at this stage in view of the judgement of Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (Supra), there is nothing on record to show that any criminal proceedings were initiated by the first informant against named/charge sheeted accused prior to the death of deceased for the alleged illegal demand of dowry or commission of cruelty upon the deceased, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the A.G.A could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of Apex Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the A.G.A in opposition to the application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail”, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered that, let the applicant-Satyendra, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court.