The severity of the offence and the accused's capability of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses are crucial factors in deciding the grant of bail in cases of dowry death.

JUDGMENT :

1. The case is called out through video conferencing.

2. Learned counsel for the bail-applicant, Sri Rama Pati Shukla, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan, Advocate are connected through video conferencing in virtual hearing of the case.

3. The present bail-application is moved on behalf of accused-applicant-Satendra Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.356 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Mishrikh, District Sitapur.

4. The occasion of present bail-application has arisen on rejection of bail-plea of the accused-applicant by learned Sessions Judge, District Sitapur vide order dated 04.12.2019.

5. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have already been exchanged between the contesting parties to the case, as such, the case is ripe for hearing.

6. Reading over the first information report, learned counsel for the bail-applicant submits, the prosecution case as emerging from the first information report is, the informant’s sister was recurrently being subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of the dowry just after few days from marriage by her in-laws namely husband-Satendra Kumar (the present accused-applicant), father-in-law, Babu Ram, mother-in-law i.e. wife of Babu Ram and brother-in-law, Yatendra Kumar. They used to abuse and beat her badly in connection with demand of the dowry. On the date of incident, all of them, after beating badly, committed her death by hanging.

7. Learned counsel for the bail-applicant in this connection argued, after registering first information report, police started investigation and recorded the statements of complainant and witnesses with which prosecution finds no support. It is further submitted that the relations between the husband i.e. the present accused-applicant and the wife i.e. the deceased were very sweet and the alleged allegation is totally false. It is also submitted that the deceased has herself committed suicide.

8. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the bail-applicant seeks benefit of parity on the basis of order of the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 03.12.2019 granting bail to the brother-in-law, namely, Yatendra Kumar and prayed to grant bail to the present accused-applicant, the husband of the deceased also.

9. Protesting the bail plea as argued by learned counsel for the bail-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that the present accused-applicant is a person of mischievous character. On the basis of instructions received to him, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State have the statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid statement (annexure no.5) in very clear unambiguous words the complainant has stated her sister deceased-Kalpana Kamle married with the present accused-applicant and just after the marriage the in-laws started demanding dowry. In connection therewith the deceased was being subjected to physical and mental cruelty by them.

10. Learned A.G.A. further argued, admittedly death of the deceased occurred unnaturally in the matrimonial home within a short span of five months from the date of marriage and as there is allegations as to the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to the cruelty by the in-laws in connection therewith soon before her death, the bail-applicant cannot take plea of his innocence on the ground that he himself has not done any cruelty against the presumption of dowry death under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. with the aid of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and consequently for dowry death under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. The unnatural death of wife in the matrimonial home itself is implicit of cruelty done alongwith wife though this is a matter of trial to see whether the death was suicidal or homicidal.

11. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the circumstances are distinguishably enough to dis-