The post mortem report shows no mark of any injury on the body of the deceased except for a ligature mark on the neck, hence Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioners: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69921 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 70 Year 2020 Thana ASANWA District Siwan Laxman Yadav aged about 45 yearsS o Late Swaminath Yadav 2. Arun Kumar Yadav @ Arun Yadav aged about 24 yearsS o Laxman Both R o village Moglanipur P.S. Assaon District Siwan The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s For the Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the State For the Informant Mr. P K Shahi Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey Advocate Mr. Nagendra Prasad APP Mr. Ramchandra Sahani Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Date : 02 09 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioners which 3. Heard Mr. P K Shahi learned senior counsel along with Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Nagendra Prasad learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State and Mr. Ramchandra Sahani learned counsel for the informant 4. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Assaon PS Case No. 720 dated 21.06.2020 instituted Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69921 dt.02 09 2021 under Sections 498A 304B 120B 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 5. The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with other family members of the husband of the deceased had killed by assaulting her and then strangulating her 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is the cousin father in law of the deceased and petitioner no. 2 is his son. It was submitted that in the FIR itself this fact has been accepted. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have their separate house which is at some distance from the matrimonial house of the deceased where she lived and where death occurred. In support thereof learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to the Ration Cards of the petitioners and family of the husband of the deceased which indicates that the house number of the matrimonial home of the deceased is 30 whereas the house number of the petitioners is 7. Learned counsel also drew the attention of the Court to Annexure 3 which is copy of the birth certificate of the son of the deceased whose name is mentioned in the FIR that is Amrit Raj which discloses that he was born on 02.08.2010 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69921 dt.02 09 2021 Learned counsel submitted that this being an official record issued in the year 2012 clearly falsifies the claim in the FIR that the marriage took place seven years prior to the death which occurred on 20.06.2020. Thus it was submitted that in any view of the matter offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be made out as the marriage obviously took place sometime in the year 2009 i.e. almost 11 years prior to the 8. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation that because the family of the informant had not given four wheeler at the time of marriage the petitioner no. 1 was angry with him is also falsified for the reason that the petitioners and family of the husband of the deceased would not be expected to wait for 11 years of marriage and 10 years of the birth of her son to finally kill her for not bringing as dowry a four wheeler. It was submitted that the Court would not lose of the ground reality and practical aspect where the entire family members of the in law’s family are made accused and in the present case the link is obvious as it has been stated that the petitioner no. 1 had acted as guardian at the time of marriage. Learned counsel submitted that since the father of the husband of the deceased had died the petitioner no. 1 had taken lead during the marriage Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69921 dt.02 09 2021 being the senior on the side of the husband of the deceased Learned counsel submitted that in the post mortem only a ligature mark has been found around the neck to indicate hanging but no other injury on the body has been detected which also falsifies the allegation that the deceased was brutally assaulted especially on the chest and there was no injury mark Summing up his arguments learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have no other criminal antecedent 9. Learned APP submitted that as per the FIR the petitioners were also party to demand of four wheeler and because of non fulfillment she has been killed by all the accused including the petitioners 10. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that death having occurred due to strangulation the role of the petitioners cannot be ruled out as the petitioner no. 1 was the person instrumental in getting the marriage solemnized However he could not controvert that from the date of birth of the grandson of the informant who is the son of the deceased the marriage had taken place in the year 2009 as also that the petitioners’ house is far separated from the matrimonial house of the deceased especially in view of copies of documents which have been brought on record in the present case Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69921 dt.02 09 2021 11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties in view of there being reliable material to indicate that the son of the deceased was born in the year 2010 and also incorrect statement having been made in the FIR that the marriage took place seven years prior to the date of incident which is June 2010 as also that in the FIR itself the role of the petitioner no. 1 indicated is that he was the person who was instrumental in getting the marriage fixed and petitioner no. 2 is his son and they having no criminal antecedent as also no mark of any injury on the body having been found on the deceased except for ligature mark on the neck the Court is persuaded to allow the prayer for pre arrest bail 12. Accordingly in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs 25 000 each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M. Siwan in Assaon PS Case No. 70 of 2020 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and furtherthat one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners andthat the petitioners shall Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69921 dt.02 09 2021 cooperate with the Court and the police prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds. 13. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions by the petitioners to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the 14. The petition stands disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioner was taken into custody under Sections 498A IPC, “Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty”, section 304B, “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”, section 120B, “Punishment of criminal conspiracy”, section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention” and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This petition is in connection with Assaon PS Case No. 70 of 2020 dated 21.06.2020. In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by honourable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 2nd of September 2021 in the case of Laxman Yadav others versus the state of Bihar, criminal miscellaneous No.6994 of 2021. Mr P K Shahi represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr Nagendra Prasad represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, and Mr Ramchandra Sahani represented the Advocate for the informant the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner who was the husband of the deceased was accused along with his family members of assaulting and strangulated his wife which resulted in his death. The counsel representing the petitioner held that petitioner no.1 is the father-in-law and petitioner no. 2 is his son. According to the FIR it has been held that the petitioners live in a different residence which is a little far from the matrimonial house where the deceased lived and died. For the evidence, the counsel brought forth ration cards of the petitioners and family of the husband of the deceased which shows that the matrimonial house no. was 30 and the petitioners house no. was 2. The counsel further held that there is a son born on the 2nd of August 2010 according to the birth certificate and therefore it falsifies that the marriage took place seven years prior to the death which occurred on the 20th of July 2020. Therefore the petitioners cannot be held liable under section 304B of the Indian penal code as the marriage took place in 2009 which is 11 years prior to the death. The counsel for the petitioner further held that according to the FIR the informants has filed that since a four-wheeler was not given as dowry at the time of marriage the petitioners were displeased but this was false as the petitioners and his family would not wait for 11 years and 10 years after their son is born to finally kill her for not bringing dowry. According to the post mortem report, only a ligature mark has been found around her neck which indicates hanging to death and no other injury has been detected. Further, the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. The APP held that according to the FIR the petitioners were also party to the demand for dowry and due to the non-fulfilment of the same she was killed by the petitioners. The counsel for the informant held that this death was due to strangulation, however, it is not controverted that the date of marriage was about 11 years prior to the incident.