The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a woman and her daughter, who were arrested in the dowry death case of her daughter-in-law on October 29, 2022.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by Vidyawati and Another.

The accused-appellants Vidyawati and Neeraj have been convicted in Sessions Trial, arising out of Case under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 201 I.P.C and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S Vishungarh, District Kannauj, and the maximum sentence awarded to the accused-appellants is ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine and with lesser sentences.

As per the prosecution case, complainant Ram Krishna filed a complaint dated 3.8.2013 with the police stating that the marriage of his sister was solemnized with accused Mukesh Pal on 30.5.2009 as per Hindu rites and rituals.

In the marriage, sufficient dowry was given as per their capacity, but the in-laws of his sister were not satisfied.

The in-laws were demanding Rs 50,000/- and an Alto Car as additional dowry. Due to non-fulfilment of their demand, they used to beat and harass his sister.

The dowry demand and harassment of the informant’s sister continued till her death by the in-laws and accused-appellants. The body of his sister (deceased) was thrown into the pond.

Based on the aforesaid complaint, the police registered the FIR against the accused and submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

On finding the sufficient evidence, the trial court convicted the accused-appellants and awarded 10 years rigorous imprisonment besides fine.

Counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case.

He further submitted that the accused-appellant no 1 is the mother-inlaw of the deceased, and accused-appellant no 2 is the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the deceased.

He also submitted that the deceased was under mental and social pressure as she could not conceive even after four years of her marriage.

He said that in the post-mortem report, the cause of death has been shown as ‘asphyxia as a result of anti-mortem drowning’, and no antemortem injury was found on the body of the deceased.

He further said that there are contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and are not corroborated with independent evidence.

He also said that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the accused-appellants. No specific role has been assigned to the accused-appellants in commissioning of the alleged crime. The prosecution has failed to prove alleged demand of dowry by the accused-appellants. Even though the death has occurred within seven years of the marriage, the prosecution could not establish dowry demand even soon before the marriage or even before the death of the deceased. It is further urged that the accused-appellants were on bail during trial.

He next submitted that the accused appellants have no criminal history to their credit and have been languishing in jail since 29.10.2022.

A.G.A has opposed the prayer for the grant of bail to the accused-appellants.

The Court observed that,

The accused-appellants are mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Nanad) of the deceased and no direct role has been assigned by the prosecution in commission of the crime.

The accused-appellants have been languishing in jail since 29.10.2022 and were on bail during trial. On perusal of the custody certificate it transpires that the accused-appellants have undergone more than 9 months.

Both the accused-appellants have no previous involvement in any other case and nothing has been brought on record about the involvement of accused-appellants in any other case.

“It may take sufficiently long time for the appeal to come on board, and the Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the accused-appellants in jail during pendency of the appeal as they were on bail during trial. The accused-appellants are entitled to be released on bail”, the Court further observed while allowing the appeal.

“Let the accused-appellants, Vidyawati and Neeraj, be released on bail in the above case on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, subject to furnishing undertaking that they will cooperate in the hearing of the appeal”, the Court ordered.

The High Court further ordered the Sessions court to present the appeal against the sentence of 10-year imprisonment and fine in the dowry death case.

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a dowry death accused, who has been in jail for over 11 years.

A single-judge bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Fayanath Yadav. The applicant, Fayanath Yadav, has moved this fourth bail application seeking bail in Case under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kurebhar, District Sultanpur.

The fourth bail application has been placed before the regular Bench in the light of the Chief Justice’s order dated 13.11.2018.

The counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.

He submitted that the applicant has almost completed more than 11 years in incarceration, but till date, the trial of the case has not been concluded.

The counsel for the applicant also submitted that the FIR was lodged on 23.05.2011 and the applicant is named in the FIR along with other co-accused persons and during investigation the complicity of four co-accused persons was not found, as such they were exonerated by the Investigating Officer.

The counsel for the applicant said there is no overt act assigned to the accused applicant and the allegation that the deceased was beaten in front of villagers and was taken around the village is not supported by any independent witness. The entire prosecution story developed in the FIR is false and fabricated with the intention to falsely implicate the applicant and his relatives.

The counsel for the applicant further said the mother of the applicant, namely, Smt Kesh Pati, was already granted bail by the Court order dated 13.09.2011, but the applicant has been in jail since 01.06.2011 and his first bail application was rejected by the Justice Ashok Pal Singh (now retired) by order dated 27.05.2013.

The counsel for the applicant also said that thereafter the applicant has moved second bail application, which was also rejected by the Justice Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore (now retired) by order dated 27.08.2015 and while rejecting the second bail application, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial, strictly adhering to provisions of Section 309 CrPC.

The counsel for the applicant stated there was a specific direction of the Court to expedite the trial but the trial of the case was not concluded for three years. Thereafter, the applicant again moved the third bail application, which was also rejected by the Justice Anant Kumar (now retired) by order dated 25.07.2019 with the direction that the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and take proper coercive steps against the witnesses to ensure that the trial will be concluded preferably within a period of six months.

The counsel for the applicant further stated that more than three years have passed after the rejection of the third bail application, but the trial of the case till date has not been concluded and as per information received out of 18 prosecution witnesses, only 6 witnesses have been examined till date.

He submitted that there is a clear cut direction of the Court to expedite the trial of the case and the time prescribed by the Court i.e six months have already expired and more than 11 years have passed from the date of detention of the applicant, but the trial of the case has been yet been concluded and further submitted that it will take much time for conclusion of trial.

It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant does not have any criminal history.

Aniruddh Singh, AGA opposed the prayer for bail, but does not dispute this fact that till date as per information furnished by the Investigating Officer, out of 18 prosecution witnesses only 6 prosecution witnesses have been examined, which is also mentioned in the counter-affidavit filed by the State and also does not dispute this fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.06.2011 and has completed more than 11 years in incarceration.

“After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, at the very outset, the Court anguish towards the poor progress of trial, the trial must have been concluded by now and the trial court is having powers to take coercive method to conclude the trial and also armed with the provisions of Section 309 CrPC, therefore, the Court is unable to comprehend as to how there is no good progress in the trial, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, and considering that applicant is in jail since 01.06.2011 and has completed more than 11 years in incarceration and the trial has not yet been concluded and out of 18 witnesses only 06 witnesses have been examined as per the counter affidavit filed by the State as well as considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Saudan Singh’s case (supra) and Suleman (supra), K.A Najeeb (supra), Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra), Kamal (supra), Takht Singh (supra) and Dataram Singh vs State of U.P and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, the Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. The prayer for bail is granted,” the Court observed while allowing the bail application.

The Court ordered,

Let the applicant, Fayanath Yadav, involved in Case under Sections 498-A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kurebhar, District Sultanpur, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(ii) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

(iii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

(vii) The party shall file a computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(viii) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant’s bail.

The Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial of the case preferably, within a period of four months from today without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either parties except there is any legal impediment or order of higher Court.

The Supreme Court has issued notice in a bail plea filed by a man booked for the dowry death of his wife, who had allegedly hanged herself, within two years of their marriage. 

The petitioner has challenged the order of the Uttarakhand High Court which had refused his second bail application. His plea raised substantial question of law before the Apex Court as to whether the High Court was erred in denying bail by raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act before it was sufficiently established by the prosecution that the death was connected to a demand of a dowry? 

A two-judge bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai has issued notice and sought the response of the Uttarakhand Government. 

The petitioner’s counsel had argued before the High Court, “Post-mortem report of deceased reveals only a single injury which is on the neck and the doctor has opined that the death was caused due to hanging. He further argued that in the present case any presumption which could have been made is under Section 113-A (Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and not under Section 113-B (Presumption as to dowry death). Thus, the presumption that can be raised is rebuttable.” He further submitted that the chargesheet has already been filed and there is no chance to tamper with the evidence, if the bail is granted. 

The High Court in its order had noted, “It is true that according to post-mortem report, there was a ligature mark and the cause of death was asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging, but merely on the basis of these, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 304-B IPC is not attracted.” 

The High Court rejected the bail application while stating that this Court refrains to make deeper discussion about the applicability of Section 304-B. Undoubtedly, there have been allegations of demand of dowry and according to prosecution, they have been made soon after the death of the deceased.

The petitioner was charged under Sections 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1976 and has been in judicial custody for a period of 1 year and 9 months after the arrest.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner has harassed his wife for the additional demand of dowry of Rs 20 lakh and a four-wheeler, but the demand could not be met and the deceased died on January 19, 2020.

What does Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act 1872 say 

113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.—When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.1[113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.—When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.” Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]

What does Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act 1872 say 

113B. Presumption as to dowry death.—When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860).]

So, the former subsection leads to a less severe punishment than being booked under the latter.

Selective disclosure to media affects the right of the accused in some cases and the rights of victims’ families’ in the other, the media does have a legitimate stake in fair reporting, the Supreme Court said this while ordering a CBI investigation and setting aside an anticipatory bail order of the in-laws in a dowry death case. 

A bench of Justices Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, and Indira Banerjee said the grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence would operate to obstruct the investigation. The court has set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court which had granted anticipatory bail to the father-in-law, the mother-in-law, the brother-in-law and the sister-in-law in a case of dowry death. 

The father of the deceased filed an appeal before the Supreme Court seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail and an investigation by the CBI. The court noted that the husband is already in jail and the father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law had been granted bail by the High Court without assigning reasons in the order as mandated by the law. 

The Apex Court noted the infirmities with the findings of the learned judge of the Allahabad HC who had noted in his order that 

(i) The applicants for bail are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law;

(ii) The spouse of the deceased is in custody; and

(iii) The FIR is not to be treated as “an encyclopedia of the prosecution’s case but must reflect the basic prosecution case.”

Having recorded the above premises, the Single Judge held that (a) “the FIR prima facie appears to be engineered to implicate the applicants”; (b) “there is no co-relation between the various allegations leveled in the FIR”; and (c) the allegations “are general in nature” with no specific role being assigned to the accused.

The Apex Court said, “We have prefaced this analysis by a reference to the FIR. There is no cogent basis for the Single Judge to have arrived at any of the three prima facie findings.”

The Supreme Court said, “The judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is unsustainable. The FIR contains a recital of allegations bearing on the role of the accused in demanding dowry, of the prior incidents of assault and the payment of money by cheque to the in-laws of the deceased. The FIR has referred to the telephone calls which were received both from the father-in-law of the deceased on the morning of 3 August 2020 and from the deceased on two occasions on the same day- a few hours before her body was found. The grant of anticipatory bail in such a serious offence would operate to obstruct the investigation. The FIR by a father who has suffered the death of his daughter in these circumstances cannot be regarded as “engineered” to falsely implicate the spouse of the deceased and his family. We hasten to add that our observations at this stage are prima facie in nature, and nothing that we have said should be construed as a determination on the merits of the case which will be adjudicated at the trial.”

During the course of the hearing, the Apex Court was informed by the counsel appearing for the State that no investigation was conducted into the allegation in the FIR that the deceased had been murdered. The Court further noted the suicide note which was found from the deceased had found its way to the newspaper which led to its publicity. 

The Court said, “The sequence, in this case, appears to follow familiar patterns. Immediate publicity was given to the alleged suicide note. These examples are now becoming familiar. Selective disclosures to the media affect the rights of the accused in some cases and the rights of victims’ families in others. The media does have a legitimate stake in fair reporting. But events such as what has happened in this case show how the selective divulging of information, including the disclosure of material which may eventually form a crucial part of the evidentiary record at the criminal trial, can be used to derail the administration of criminal justice. The investigating officer has a duty to investigate when information about the commission of a cognizable offence is brought to their attention. Unfortunately, this role is being compromised by the manner in which selective leaks take place in the public realm. This is not fair to the accused because it pulls the rug below the presumption of innocence. It is not fair to the victims of crime, if they have survived the crime, and where they have not, to their families. Neither the victims nor their families have a platform to answer the publication of lurid details about their lives and circumstances. Having said this, we prima facie reject the insinuation that the FIR had not doubted or referenced the suicide note, despite its publication in the news media.”

Also Read: Farmers’ protest: Supreme Court says farmers can protest but can’t block movement of people, goods into Delhi

“It would indeed be a travesty if this Court were to ignore the glaring deficiencies in the investigation conducted so far, irrespective of the stage of the proceedings or the nature of the question before this Court. The status of the accused as propertied and wealthy persons of influence in Agra and the conduct of the investigation thus far diminishes this Court’s faith in directing a further investigation by the same authorities. The cause of justice would not be served if the Court were to confine the scope of its examination to the wisdom of granting anticipatory bail and ignore the possibility of a trial being concluded on the basis of a deficient investigation at best or a biased one at worst,” noted the Court, while transferring case to the CBI.