The court affirmed that bail should be granted when the investigation is complete and the accused poses no flight risk, emphasizing the non-punitive purpose of pre-trial detention.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304B, 498A - Bail application for the applicant accused in dowry death case, who has been in custody since 04.04.2021. The court held that as the evidence is complete and the applicant cannot be deemed a flight risk, bail should be granted. (Paras 1, 20, 21)

(B) Section 304B - Definition and ingredients of 'dowry death' highlight that the death must occur under abnormal circumstances and within seven years of marriage. (Paras 10, 15)

(C) Allegations of dowry demand should be substantiated, and the nature of the demand in the ongoing trial is critical. (Paras 11, 12)

(D) Purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's availability for trial, not punitive. Keeping the accused in custody during trial delays is frowned upon. (Paras 19, 20) (E) Conditions for bail include non-contact with witnesses and informing authorities about any change of residence. (Paras 21) (F)

Result: Bail application allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments for and against bail (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. legal interpretation of dowry death (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. considerations for granting bail (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. order for bail conditions (Para 21 , 24)
6. clarifications on the trial impact (Para 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT

1. The present application under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.") has been filed for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 150/21, dated 02.04.2021, under Sections 304B/498A/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"), registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj.

2. The FIR was registered on a complaint given by Shri Naveen Kumar, brother of the deceased. He alleged that his sister, Smt. Rajesh Devi was married to the applicant and is a victim of dowry death.

3. The present case has a long history. The marriage between the applicant and the deceased was solemnized on 03.12.2014 and the first child out of the wedlock was born on 19.08.2017. A complaint was filed by the deceased with the Crime Against Woman Cell on 18.09.2018 and an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was also filed by the deceased on 24.09.2018 against the complainant.

4. It appears that those disputes were, thereafter, settled in the month of January, 2020, and the parties again started staying together. The second child out of the wedlock was, thereafter, born on 03.12.2020.

5. On 01.04.2021, the deceased was found hanging by the fan and the two children were found in an unconscious state in the bathroom. The house was found to be locked from inside. The FIR was, thereafter, registered on the complaint given by Naveen Kumar, brother of the deceased. The applicant was arrested on 03.04.2021 and is in custody since then.

6. The investigation, in the present case, is complete and the charge sheet has already been filed on 01.06.2021. It is informed that the charges against the applicant have already been framed under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC.

7. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in incarceration since 03.04.2021. He submits that the investigation, in the present case, is long over and no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further custody. He submits that the trial in the present case is being delayed at the instance of the family of the deceased and is not likely to be over in near future. The applicant cannot be kept in custody during the entire period of the trial. He states that there are no chances of tampering with the evidence as the investigation is already over and any other apprehension can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions.

8. He further submits that the only allegation of a demand is an alleged demand made by the applicant after the birth of the second child. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the same does not fall in the category of dowry.

9. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail application. She submits that the investigation clearly reveals that the deceased was subjected to torture and cruelty in relation to demand of dowry. She further submits that the autopsy of the deceased clearly indicates that she was subjected to cruelty and injuries found on the body were inflicted during the last six days of the death.

REASONING

10. Section 304B of IPC reads as under:

"304B. Dowry death

(1) 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. Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document