Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3260
PATNA HIGH COURT
Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar
CHAMCHAM KUMAR @ CHANDAN KUMAR @ CHAMCHAN KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
CR. MISC./39983/2022
In cases of dowry death, the court will consider the gravity of the crime and the direct involvement of the accused, even in the absence of eyewitnesses, when determining whether to grant bail.
Headnote:
BAIL - SECTION 304B, 201/34 IPC - HUSBAND OF DECEASED - NO EYE WITNESS - PARENTS-IN-LAW GRANTED BAIL - PETITIONER LANGUISHING IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY SINCE 13.09.2021 - BAIL REJECTED
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the husband of the deceased, was accused of torturing and killing her due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands. The petitioner claimed false implication and lack of eyewitnesses, while the prosecution opposed bail based on witness statements supporting the prosecution case.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's bail application, considering the heinous nature of dowry death and the direct allegation against the petitioner as the husband of the deceased.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, the husband of the deceased, should be granted bail in a case of dowry death under Section 304B, 201/34 IPC, despite the absence of eyewitnesses and the grant of bail to his parents-in-law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's status as the husband of the deceased and the gravity of the crime of dowry death outweighed the factors in favor of bail, such as the lack of eyewitnesses and the grant of bail to his parents-in-law.
Final Decision: The petitioner's bail application was rejected, and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39983 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2021 Thana- KONCH District- Gaya
======================================================
CHAMCHAM KUMAR @ CHANDAN KUMAR @ CHAMCHAN
KUMAR S/O KAMLESH YADAV @ KAMLESH PRABHAKAR Resident
of Village- Usash Deora, P.S.- Konch, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr.Y.C. Verma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey
For the informant Mr. Manish Kumar No. 2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR
ORAL ORDER
3
11-01-2023
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted
for the offence under Section 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner along with his
family members have tortured in various ways due to non-
fulfillment dowry demand and ultimately they killed her and her
body was cremated with a view to wipe off the evidence.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner
has made victim of circumstances as he is husband of the
deceased. There is no eye witness of the case and the whole case
is based on concocted story. Information regarding death of
deceased was given to her family members by the petitioenr but
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39983 of 2022(3) dt.11-01-2023
2/2
still they did not participate in funeral. Parents-in-law of the
deceased have already been granted bail by another Bench vide
order dated 8.3.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 47099 of 2021 and
vide order dated 21.12.2021 in Cr. Misc. No. 47607 of 2021.
Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 13.09.2021.
The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for
the State and learned counsel for the informant. They submitted
that petitioner is husband of the deceased and there is direct
allegation against him. During investigation, several witnesses
have supported the prosecution case in para nos. 4 5, 6, 7 of the
case diary, which is also mentioned in the impugned order.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the fact that petitioner is husband of the deceased
and dowry death is a heinous crime, this court is not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail
stands rejected.
The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude
the trial as early as possible.
sushma/-
(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J)
U
