The presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act applies when a woman dies within seven years of her marriage in her matrimonial home.

Court No. - 76

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42941 of 2022

Applicant :- Bhola Chaudhary

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Akhil Ranjan

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and

learned

Additional

Government

Advocate

representing the State.

By means of this application under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime

No. 335 of 2021, under sections 498A, 304B IPC

and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police

station Gulriha, district Gorakhpur, seeks

enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

As per prosecution case, in brief, informant Geeta

Devi who is the mother of the deceased has

lodged an F.I.R. on 26.06.2021 against the

applicant Bhola Chaudhary and Urmila Chaudhary

who are husband and mother-in-law of the

deceased with the allegation that the marriage of

her daughter was solemnized with the applicant on

13.05.2021. FIR further alleges that her in-laws

were not satisfied with the dowry given in the

marriage of her daughter and there was consistent

demand of Rs. 50,000/- from the side of accused

persons. On 26.06.2021, she received an

information that her daughter has committed

suicide.

The main substratum of argument of learned

counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has

been falsely implicated in this case. No such

demand of dowry was made from the side of the

applicant. The deceased has committed suicide

due to frustration because she was not happy with

her marriage with the applicant. It is also

submitted that before the trial Court, statement of

two prosecution witnesses namely Geeta Devi and

Suraj Prasad, who are mother and father of the

deceased were recorded and they have not

supported the prosecution case. It is next argued

that PW-2 has been declared hostile, therefore,

applicant who is languishing in jail since

27.06.2021 is entitled to be released on bail.

Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for

the applicant that there is no chance of the

applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process

or tampering with the prosecution evidence.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed

the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending

that victim has died in her matrimonial home and

possibility of winning over the witnesses from the

accused side cannot be ruled out, as such, the bail

application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

examined the matter in its entirety, I find

substance in the submission of learned A.G.A that

victim has died within a short span of about 1-1/2

month of her marriage in her matrimonial home.

The applicant being husband of the victim is

responsible for taking care of his wife. Since the

death of the deceased has been done within a

period of 7 years of her marriage, therefore,

presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B

of the Indian Evidence Act shall be drawn against

the applicant. I also find that since two prosecution

witnesses have already been examined and trial of

the applicant is proceeding, therefore, I do not find

any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is

rejected at this stage.

It is made clear that the observation contained in

the instant order is confined to the issue of bail

and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

However the trial court is directed to make an

endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously,

without granting any unnecessary adjournment to

either of the parties following the provisions

provided under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

Order Date :- 10.1.2023

Kashifa

Digitally signed by :-

KASHIFA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad