The Allahabad High Court has allowed the conditional anticipatory bail of dowry murder accused Ashish Kumar alias Rinku of Prem Nagar, Jhansi.
A Single Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application filed by Ashish Kumar @ Rinku.
The anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R/Case under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Prem Nagar, District- Jhansi, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
The facts of the case are that the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with the applicant as per Hindu Rites on 10.12.2005. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of dowry.
It is also alleged in the FIR that the electronic shop of the applicant got closed due to loss, as such, he is stated to have demanded an amount of Rs 50,000/- for business as dowry. The inability of the informant to provide them with Rs 50,000/- again impelled them to start committing cruelty to her and are even stated to have threatened the deceased that they shall kill her by sprinkling kerosene oil over her.
On 10.04.2007 at about 06:00 PM, the applicant and other family members are stated to have set the daughter of the informant afire whereby she sustained 85 per cent burn injuries and was admitted at Medical College in a serious condition. The applicant and other family members did not inform the informant about the incident. Somehow on 17.04.2007, he was informed telephonically by an anonymous neighbour regarding the incident. The informant reached the Medical College and was told by his daughter that she has been set afire by sprinkling kerosene over her by the applicant and his family members.
The FIR of the informant could not be instituted at Prem Nagar, Jhansi on 19.04.2007. The same day, the victim started bleeding and she gave birth to a premature four months old child who was also disposed of by her mother-in-law by burning him. The victim succumbed to her injuries the same day at about 05:00 PM.
Counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution.
Counsel has further stated that the dying declaration was recorded the same day of incident i.e on 10.04.2007 itself whereby she has stated that she sustained burn injuries by accident while cooking food.
Counsel has further stated that the applicant himself had sustained about 8 per cent burn injuries in an attempt to save the victim (his wife).
Counsel for the applicant has next stated that the FIR is delayed by about three months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Even the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C was moved before the concerned Magistrate on 23.04.2007 which itself is delayed.
Counsel for the applicant has next stated that the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate vide order dated 17.09.2010 and the same along with another order dated 21.10.2013 challenged by the applicant and other co-accused persons by filing a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C and the Court was pleased to allow the said petition and the cognizance order and consequential proceedings were quashed vide order dated 29.08.2022.
Subsequent to it, C.J.M, Jhansi again passed an order taking cognizance against the applicant on 26.06.2023. The said cognizance taking order was also challenged by filing another petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C, whereby the said petition was dismissed by the Court order dated 13.10.2023.
On this count, AGA has stated that the dying declaration is not a part of case diary, as such, cognizance order is proper as before taking cognizance to summon the accused persons, Magistrate is to consider the evidence collected during investigation and on the evidence, Magistrate has to apply his judicial mind.
Counsel for the applicant has further stated that subsequent to it, non-bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant on 07.08.2022. The applicant had applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Jhansi which was rejected on 01.11.2023 on the wrong averment that the proceedings u/s 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. are complete. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.
On the other hand, A.G.A has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the applicant is running from pillar to post and has stalled the trial for 16 long years and he is not cooperating in trial.
AGA has fairly conceded the fact that only non bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant and that too on 07.08.2022, subsequent to fresh cognizance taking order dated 26.06.2023.
“The present case seems to be blatant misuse of dowry laws and the exception has to be drawn in such cases. It seems to be a clear cut case of false implication, as such, the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C are attracted in it. The judgement of the Court passed in Shivam Vs State of U.P and Another, is applicable to the case as the most potent and relevant piece of evidence i.e dying declaration has not been taken into account earlier on.
After taking into consideration the fact that the dying declaration, the deceased had sustained burn injuries on account of accident and also taking into consideration the fact that the applicant himself had sustained 8 per cent burn injuries in trying to extinguish the fire sustained by the deceased person coupled with the fact that the informant was panch witness in the inquest proceedings, I find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail”, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered that,
In the event of arrest of the applicant, Ashish Kumar @ Rinku involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-
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 previous permission of the court;
iv. that 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;
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.