Death of victim cannot be termed as “not under normal circumstances”; Allahabad High Court grants anticipatory bail in dowry death case

allahabad high court

Allahabad High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC') and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Krishan Pahal, J. allowed the anticipatory bail application subject to certain conditions.

In the case at hand, the applicant (husband) married the deceased daughter of the informant as per Hindu rites. Allegedly, the deceased daughter was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and she also undergone abortion in September 2022. Further, the applicant and other family members are alleged to have beaten the deceased, by which her condition deteriorated.

The Court noted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is an admitted fact that there was discord in the family as the deceased person was living at her parental home for a substantial period.

The Court took note of Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730 and said that neither the proceedings under Section 82 CrPC nor Section 438 CrPC impose any restriction in the filing of anticipatory bail application by the proclaimed offender. While laying down the law, the Supreme Court has used the word “normally”.

The Court said that the deceased died of o “septicemia due to chronic illness of multiple organs involvement”. Thus, the death cannot be termed as “not under normal circumstances” as envisaged under Section 304-B IPC. As the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, do not stand fulfilled, this case seems to be a misuse of the dowry laws.

The Court noted that there was no complaint against the applicant or his family members before the death of the deceased person and that no visible injury has been observed on the body of the deceased person internally or externally.

Thus, in view of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1,the Court allowed the anticipatory bail application subject to certain conditions.

[Udit Arya v. State of UP, 2023 SCC OnLine All 158, Order dated 03-05-2023]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Counsel for Applicant :- Advocate Jitendra Prasad, Advocate Satya Prakash Rai

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Government Advocate Anil Mullick

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.