The Court declined pre-arrest bail as there was a strong probability of foul play in the death of the deceased.: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.355120 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 342 Year 2019 Thana KOTWA District East Champaran 1. Asha Devi Female aged about 59 years wife of Shewak Singh Shewak Singh Male aged about 66 years son of Dev Singh Ragani Kumari female aged about 20 years daughter of Shewak Singh 4. Munna Kumar male aged about 26 years son of Shewak Singh All are resident of Village Madhuaha @ Maduaha PS Kotwa District Sangeeta Devi female aged about 29 years wife of Binay Singh Daughter of Shewak Singh Resident of Village Sagar Kathariya PO Sagar PS Kotwa District East Champaran The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Mr. Pravin Kumar Advocate Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat APP Date : 29 07 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. Heard Mr. Pravin Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the 3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Kotwa PS Case No. 3419 dated 26.11.2019 instituted under Sections 304B 201 and 120B 34 of the Indian Penal 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that they Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.355120 dt.29 07 2021 were party to the killing of the sister of the informant being family members of the husband of the deceased 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are the relatives of the husband of the deceased and were separate both in lodging and mess and that it was a love marriage between the deceased and her husband. It was submitted that in the FIR itself it is said that the husband of the deceased had rung up the informant to tell him about her death and the fact is that the family members of the deceased had come and participated in the cremation but later on they have lodged this false case. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased was a chronic patient of epilepsy since before her marriage. It was submitted that subsequently both the parties have also filed compromise petition in the Court below 6. Learned APP from the case diary submitted that besides the death having occurred within three years of marriage the petitioners are in laws of the deceased living in the same house and the witnesses have supported the prosecution case that the body was cremated without any information to the deceased’s family. It was submitted that only a bald stand has been taken by the petitioners that the husband of the deceased had informed the family of the deceased that she had died but Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.355120 dt.29 07 2021 there is no explanation as to how a young girl had died suddenly. Further it was submitted that the marriage being a love marriage it is obvious that the petitioners would not have been satisfied with the same as they had not arranged the marriage which also raises strong circumstances with regard to their complicity. Moreover it was submitted that there being no material to show that the deceased was suffering from a life threatening disease and had died as a result thereof and further no effort being made by the petitioners to take the deceased to any doctor or hospital if at all she had fallen ill itself is a big pointer that something wrong had been done which they had covered up and the best way was by cremating the body without leaving any trace of any such mark or evidence. It was submitted that had the petitioners been innocent the death of a young girl without any explanation having occurred in the matrimonial home it was their duty to inform the police for registering at least a case of unnatural death which has not been 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP. The sheer conduct of the petitioners who are in laws of the deceased Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.355120 dt.29 07 2021 and living in the same house coupled with the fact that the marriage was a love marriage indicates that the petitioners were not satisfied with the same and thus there is strong probability that there was some foul play in the death of the deceased as it occurred within three years of marriage and that the deceased was a young girl. Further it was submitted that nothing has come during investigation to even indicate that any effort was made by the petitioners to get any kind of medical aid to the victim which cannot also be lost sight of 8. For reasons aforesaid the Court is not inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioners 9. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed 10. Interim protection granted to the petitioners under order dated 29.06.2021 stands vacated 11. However in view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners it is observed that if the petitioners appear before the Court below and pray for bail the same shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the present order (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioner was arrested under Section 304B IPC, “Dowry death”, section 201, “Causing disappearance of evidence of the offense, or giving false information to screen offender” and section 120B, “Punishment of criminal conspiracy”, section 34IPC, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”. This is in connection with Kotwa PS Case No. 342 of 2019 dated 26.11.2019. This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 29th  of July 2021 in the case of Asha Dev and others versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous, No.35510 of 2020 Mr. Pravin Kumar Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Prasad represented as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioners being family members of the husband of the deceased they were accused of being a party to the killing of the informant’s sister. The counsel for the petitioner held that the relatives of the husband of the deceased were residing separately, which was later transpired to be false and the husband and the deceased had a love marriage and according to the FIR, the husband of the deceased called up the informant to inform him about his sister’s death and here the family was not hiding anything. The family members also visited during the cremation process but later on the informant lodged a case regarding the same. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deceased before marriage was suffering from epilepsy and was a chronic patient. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that since section 304B states that when death happens within seven years of the marriage the relatives of the husband can be made liable under section 304B since in our case the death happened within three years, it is clearly a dowry death, the prosecutor objected the case made by the counsel for the in-laws of the deceased, and held that according to the witness the in-laws stayed with the deceased and the cremation was done without informing the deceased’s family. Only a very vague statement was made regarding the death of the young girl but no explanation was made regarding the same, another indication to why the in-laws were displeased was because it was a long marriage and regarding the illness, there is no strong evidence to claim she died from the illness and the in-laws failed to provide her medical aid and the in-laws failed to register an unnatural death in this case. Therefore, the petitioners must be held liable for causing dowry death. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the court held that “The sheer conduct of the petitioners, who are in-laws of the deceased and living in the same house, coupled with the fact that the marriage was a love marriage, indicates that the petitioners were not satisfied with the same, and, thus, there is a strong probability that there was some foul play in the death of the deceased as it occurred within three years of marriage and that the deceased was a young girl. Further, it was submitted, that nothing has come during the investigation to even indicate that any effort was made by the petitioners to get any kind of medical aid to the victim which cannot also be lost sight of.” The court concluded that “The Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Interim protection granted to the petitioners under order dated 29.06.2021, stands vacated.” Click here to read the judgment