Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.36214 of 2012 ====================================================== Kunal Singh @ Kumal Singh S/O Satyendra Singh R/O Village - Bihta, P.S. Haspura, District – Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 3. 16-10-2012 Heard Mr. Ajay Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Haspura P.S. Case No. 37 of 2011 registered for offence under [STATUTE] . As per the prosecution story, the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, was married to the daughter of the informant on 26.02.2011 and the death occurred on 22.03.2011. It is alleged that cash and gift were given at the time of marriage and there was demand for further dowry and the deceased was threatened that if the same was not paid then she would be turned out and also killed. The allegation is further with regard to the informant not being informed about the death and the body being Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36214 of 2012 (3) dt.16-10-2012 2 cremated without any information to the informant and his family. The source of information about the death is alleged to be a phone call made from the house of the petitioner to the informant the next day in which the message was conveyed that the deceased had been killed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the death having taken place within less than one month from the date of marriage, even if for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that there was demand of dowry, then also it is totally absurd and unbelievable that without waiting for the same or waiting for the girl to go back to her matrimonial house and then being brought to the house of the petitioner by way of ‘duragaman’, such a drastic and extreme step would be taken by the petitioner and his family members. Learned counsel submits that even the allegation in the F.I.R. itself is that a call was made from the house of the petitioner about the informant’s daughter having been killed, is also totally unbelievable since the accused could not have admitted that they had actually killed the deceased. Learned counsel submits that the deceased was suffering from heart ailment since prior to marriage which information was suppressed from the petitioner’s family and she stopped taking medicines since she came to the matrimonial home and on the fateful night on 22.02.2011 she Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36214 of 2012 (3) dt.16-10-2012 3 developed acute chest pain and while being taken to the hospital breathed her last. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and his family has good reputation in the society. Learned counsel further draws the attention of this Court to the statements made in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the petition which are the statements of various persons/witnesses before the police and show that the petitioner is innocent. Learned counsel also submits that the reason mentioned for lodging of the F.I.R. on 24.03.2011, i.e., after a delay of two days is sought to be explained in the F.I.R. on the ground that when the informant’s son along with another person tried to go to the police station for lodging F.I.R., 5-6 unknown persons of the village threatened them not to do so and thus the F.I.R. was lodged only on 24.03.2011. Learned counsel submits that even such explanation is falsified by the fact that had there been any threat from any person in the village then the normal course of action would have been that the persons would have left the village and not stayed behind. It is also submitted that there is no mentioning in the F.I.R. as to where the informant’s son and the other person stayed in the village of the petitioner. The other aspect which is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner is that even if such an explanation is accepted for the sake of argument then also there is no explanation that why the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36214 of 2012 (3) dt.16-10-2012 4 F.I.R. was lodged at 6:45 p.m. on 24.03.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.10.2011. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the petitioner being the husband and the death having occurred in the matrimonial house, he does not deserve to be released on bail. Upon hearing learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Daudnagar in connection with Haspura P.S. Case No. 37 of 2011. Anjani/- (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 304B

Statute Text:
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Dowry death. Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.