Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Cal) 1004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Tapabrata Chakraborty, Sugato Majumdar, JJ.
Kushal Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
CRM No. 7164 of 2021
Decided On : 23-02-2022

Advocates appeared:
Siddhartha Luthra, Advocate, Milan Bhattacharya, Advocate, Sandipan Ganguly, Advocate, Debasish Roy, Advocate, Nilay Sengupta, Advocate, Sabyasachi Banerjee, Advocate, Ayan Bhattacharya, Advocate, Ankit Agarwala, Advocate, Rudradipta Nandy, Advocate, Mithun Singh, Advocate, Sujit Banerjee, Advocate, Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Advocate, Sudip Ghosh, Advocate, Sonali Das, Advocate, Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Advocate, Ajay Agarwal, Advocate, Somopriyo Chowdhury, Advocate, Sanket Sarangi, Advocate, Arka Banerjee, Advocate

The court's decision on the grant of anticipatory bail is based on the nature and gravity of the offences, the role of the petitioner, and the facts of the case.

Headnote:
IPC - Anticipatory Bail - Sections 498a/306/34, 406/304B - The court discussed the legal provisions of IPC Sections 304B and 306, the nature and gravity of the offences, and the role of the accused in deciding the grant of anticipatory bail. The court refused the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case under Sections 498a/306/34 and later added Sections 406/304B of the Indian Penal Code. The victim fell from the 3rd floor of her matrimonial house and succumbed to her injuries. The petitioner's advocate argued that there was no demand for dowry and the victim's death was due to psychiatric problems. The Public Prosecutor argued that the victim was taunted and mentally tortured by her husband and in-laws, leading to depression and suicide. The court refused the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the victim's death occurred under abnormal circumstances within a year of her marriage. The court considered the nature and gravity of the offences, the role of the petitioner, and the facts of the case in deciding the grant of anticipatory bail. The court refused the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature and gravity of the offences, the role of the petitioner, and the facts of the case in deciding the grant of anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision on the grant of anticipatory bail was based on the nature and gravity of the offences, the role of the petitioner, and the facts of the case.
Final Decision: The court refused the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. - apprehending arrest in connection with alipore Police Station Case No.15 of 2021 dated 17th February, of 2021 under Sections 498a/306/34 and later added Sections 406/304B of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC), the present application has been preferred.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that upon negotiation between two families, the petitioner's marriage with the victim was held on 9th February, 2020 at Umaid Bhawan Palace, Jodhpur. after marriage the couple immediately left for honeymoon to Dubai and Oman for about six days. Upon returning to India, the petitioner's family arranged a post marriage celebration on 23rd February, 2020 in their ancestral house at Purulia. Thereafter the couple attended various parties and ceremonies together. From November, 2020 till 11th February, 2021, the couple visited different places. But unfortunately thereafter on 16th February, 2021 the victim fell down from the 3rd floor of her matrimonial house and succumbed to her injuries. On 17th February, 2021 the victim's father lodged a complaint and the present case was registered under Sections 498a/306/34 of IPC. In continuation with the said complaint, the victim's father submitted a further representation dated 25th February, 2021. In course of investigation, Sections 406/304B of IPC were added at the behest of the investigating agency. alleging inter alia that the victim's family members were publishing disturbing and defamatory statements, the petitioner's father preferred a Title Suit No.208 of 2021 and in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code filed in connection with the said suit an order was passed on 25th June, 2021 restraining the defendant nos.2 to 4 therein from publishing any defamatory and derogatory statements or news, posts, videos. alleging inter alia that the victim's father had operated a bank locker, jointly held by him and the victim, suppressing the fact that the victim had already expired, petitioner's cousin, namely, Rahul agarwal lodged a complaint on 22nd July, 2021 and the same was registered as Kalighat Police Station Case No.78 of 2021 dated 22nd July, 2021 under Sections 404, 406, 409, 388, 506 and 120B of IPC. In the same a progress report was submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Kalighat Police Station on 8th September, 2021. In the midst thereof, on 17th april, 2021 a non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner and an anticipatory bail application was initially preferred before the learned Court below on 24th May, 2021 when the case diary was called for. On 29th May, 2021 though the case diary was produced the petitioner's advocate prayed for repeated adjournments on 2nd June, 2021 and on 9th June, 2021. Surprisingly on 15th June, 2021 the petitioner withdrew the said application with liberty to file afresh. Thereafter the present application was filed before this Court in the month of October, 2021. The application was heard on 8th November, 2021 and a coordinate Bench of this Court observed that 'since we are in the process of hearing this application for anticipatory bail, we trust and hope that no adverse action shall be taken against the petitioner till the disposal of the application'.

3. Mr. Luthra, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the relationship between the victim and her in-laws was cordial throughout. There was no demand for dowry and the victim was never treated cruelly. Even in the first complaint lodged by the victim's father on 17th February, 2021, there is no allegation to the effect that there was any demand for dowry. about a week thereafter on 25th February, 2021, a further representation was submitted by him alleging that there had been incessant demand of various articles from the victim and her family. There is no proximate nexus between the death of the victim and cruelty based on dowry and the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC are