Aakash Chand And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The present Application has been filed by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.92 of 2012, registered at Police Station Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar.

According to the First Information Report dated 30.08.2012, Smt. Shilpi, the daughter of the informant Seth Masiah, was married to Sanjay Chand, the co-accused, on 27.12.2007. The informant and the applicants are Christian. Applicant no.1 is the brother and the applicant no.2 is the mother of the co-accused Sanjay Chand. Applicants and co-accused were demanding a Santro car and Rs.5.00 lakh. They used to misbehave with his daughter while making the said demand. They fed poison to his daughter on 25.08.2012, due to which she died.

Heard Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent no.1.

Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, contended that the said allegations are totally false. Smt. Shilpi told her husband that she felt something was missing. She told that she was not able to give a child to her husband. She was taking treatment for conceiving child in Meerut. On 25.08.2012, she consumed some insecticide. She was taken to the hospital by her husband.

Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate submitted that after lodging the First Information Report, the dead body of the deceased was exhumed from the grave in Meerut. Inquest proceeding was conducted on 30.09.2012. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on the same day. As per the post-mortem Report, the cause of death could not be ascertained, hence, the viscera was preserved. The charge-sheet has been filed under Section 498A and Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”), Section 3 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 without viscera report. Now, the viscera report has been filed before the trial court. As per the viscera report, poison was not found. The statement of the father of the deceased, recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, reveals that there are no allegations of dowry demand soon before the death of the deceased. The allegation of the dowry demand is general in nature. The offence under Section 304B of IPC is not made out.

Mr. Siddhatha Sah, Advocate further submitted that the applicants were never arrested during the course of the investigation. They were granted interim relief in a Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the First Information Report. They were granted interim relief in the Application, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Co-accused Sanjay Chand has already been granted regular bail by this Court. Applicants are permanent residents of District Udham Singh Nagar, therefore, there is no possibility of their absconding.

Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant Government Advocate has opposed the anticipatory bail application orally.

Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present Application, filed for anticipatory bail, is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants Aakash Chand and Smt. Kavita Chand, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Applicants shall attend the trial court regularly and they shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

(ii) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case;

(iii) Applicants shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.

It is clarified that if the applicants misuse or violate any of the conditions, imposed upon them, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.