High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Advocate learned Additional representing the State. Government

2. The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dramandganj, District Mirzapur, during the pendency of trial.

3. As per the prosecution case, in brief, the complainant who is father of the deceased lodged a first information report on 11.04.2024 at 13:05 hours with regard to an incident which took place on the same day at 6 O'clock against the applicant alleging inter alia that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with her daughter three years back and in the marriage sufficient dowry was given. After the marriage applicant started demanding additional dowry and on non-fulfilment of his demand, the application started torturing and harassing her daughter. On 11.04.2024 at about 6:00 A.M. informant received information that his daughter committed suicide.

4. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is husband of the deceased. He was working at 'Primex Intelligence Security Service' in Mumbai as Watchman and was getting salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month, therefore, due to low salary, he was not able to maintain his wife (deceased) keeping her at Mumbai, whereas she was insisting that she will also stay with him in Mumbai. On account of this reason, deceased committed suicide on 11.04.2024 when applicant had gone to attend the call of nature. In order to show bona fide conduct of the applicant it is pointed out that applicant immediately gave information on 11.04.2024 at about 6 O'clock to his father-in-law, on which parents of the deceased came to his house. It is also submitted that applicant and his father were also very much present at the time of inquest proceeding and there are also the Panch Witnesses. In the postmortem report of the deceased, no external injury mark has been found on the body of the deceased except ligature mark around the neck. After the postmortem, the applicant himself performed other rituals of cremation of the deceased. So far as allegation of demand of dowry is concerned, he submits that except the oral allegation in the F.I.R., no complaint of any kind was ever made from the side of the complainant. The deceased committed suicide leaving behind a son aged about 2 years. On the strength of aforesaid fact, it is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Lastly, it is submitted by 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. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.04.2024 having no criminal history to his credit and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant in the light of prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. by contending that the deceased died her unnatural death in her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage, therefore, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that the applicant and his family members were not absconding after the incident and after giving information to the parents of the deceased they were very much present at the spot for other required formalities (inquest, postmortem, etc). The cause of death of the deceased is hanging. So far as presumptions under Sections 113A and 113B of Evidence Act are concerned, this Court is of the view that there is no dispute that the parameters for considering the bail of accused pending trial and conviction or acquittal of accused after adducing evidences by both the parties before the trial Court are different. This Court is of the view that each case turns on its own facts and circumstances. Even a little difference between the facts of two cases, may alter the entire aspect. In view of the provisions under Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act, it is not that the Courts will shut eyes and act as a silent spectator in all the cases while considering bail applications, the Courts are duty bound to consider broader aspect of the matter and in the light of nature of allegations, the relevant materials of the case diary either produced by the complainant's side or by the accused's side to prove his/her innocence cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

8. Let the applicant-Satyam Alias Sattan Kol, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

9. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

10. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Kashifa

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Advocate learned Additional representing the State. Government

2. The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dramandganj, District Mirzapur, during the pendency of trial.

3. As per the prosecution case, in brief, the complainant who is father of the deceased lodged a first information report on 11.04.2024 at 13:05 hours with regard to an incident which took place on the same day at 6 O'clock against the applicant alleging inter alia that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with her daughter three years back and in the marriage sufficient dowry was given. After the marriage applicant started demanding additional dowry and on non-fulfilment of his demand, the application started torturing and harassing her daughter. On 11.04.2024 at about 6:00 A.M. informant received information that his daughter committed suicide.

4. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is husband of the deceased. He was working at 'Primex Intelligence Security Service' in Mumbai as Watchman and was getting salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month, therefore, due to low salary, he was not able to maintain his wife (deceased) keeping her at Mumbai, whereas she was insisting that she will also stay with him in Mumbai. On account of this reason, deceased committed suicide on 11.04.2024 when applicant had gone to attend the call of nature. In order to show bona fide conduct of the applicant it is pointed out that applicant immediately gave information on 11.04.2024 at about 6 O'clock to his father-in-law, on which parents of the deceased came to his house. It is also submitted that applicant and his father were also very much present at the time of inquest proceeding and there are also the Panch Witnesses. In the postmortem report of the deceased, no external injury mark has been found on the body of the deceased except ligature mark around the neck. After the postmortem, the applicant himself performed other rituals of cremation of the deceased. So far as allegation of demand of dowry is concerned, he submits that except the oral allegation in the F.I.R., no complaint of any kind was ever made from the side of the complainant. The deceased committed suicide leaving behind a son aged about 2 years. On the strength of aforesaid fact, it is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Lastly, it is submitted by 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. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.04.2024 having no criminal history to his credit and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant in the light of prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. by contending that the deceased died her unnatural death in her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage, therefore, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that the applicant and his family members were not absconding after the incident and after giving information to the parents of the deceased they were very much present at the spot for other required formalities (inquest, postmortem, etc). The cause of death of the deceased is hanging. So far as presumptions under Sections 113A and 113B of Evidence Act are concerned, this Court is of the view that there is no dispute that the parameters for considering the bail of accused pending trial and conviction or acquittal of accused after adducing evidences by both the parties before the trial Court are different. This Court is of the view that each case turns on its own facts and circumstances. Even a little difference between the facts of two cases, may alter the entire aspect. In view of the provisions under Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act, it is not that the Courts will shut eyes and act as a silent spectator in all the cases while considering bail applications, the Courts are duty bound to consider broader aspect of the matter and in the light of nature of allegations, the relevant materials of the case diary either produced by the complainant's side or by the accused's side to prove his/her innocence cannot be ignored because bail matters are also related to the valuable liberty of the accused.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

8. Let the applicant-Satyam Alias Sattan Kol, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

9. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

10. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Kashifa