Amri Devi And Another vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others

Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J

This is an application seeking grant of bail under Section 498-A read with 304-B RPC in connection with FIR No. 04/2019 dated 06.01.2019. It was urged that the petitioner No. 1 is the mother of two minor daughters aged 11 years and 7 years, as also the minor son and that there was nobody to look after them. It was also urged that the children have dropped out of school.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the petitioner No. 1, being a woman must be considered for grant of bail with a view to prevent the children from vagrancy.

The prayer for bail is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent-State. On a perusal of the record, it can be seen that the deceased, who was daughter-in-law of the petitioner No. 1 and wife of petitioner No. 2 had died within one year of her marriage and the death was caused on account of hanging.

From the investigation, it appears that soon after the marriage, the deceased was harassed and tortured by the accused petitioners in regard to the dowry, who was also said to be thrown out of the house by the petitioners. According to the stand taken by the respondent-State, during investigation, the petitioners had also levelled allegations of unchastity against the deceased. It is alleged that on account of the torture and harassment, the deceased finally committed suicide.

After the completion of the investigation, it appears that a challan has since been filed in the Court with no material witnesses examined in the matter. According to the proviso to Section 497(C) of the RPC, there is a prohibition imposed on the Court to release the accused on bail inter alia for offences under Section 304-B of the RPC, if the Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that accusation against the accused persons are prima facie true. Conversely, bail in such offences can be granted, if the Court has reasons to believe that the accusation is prima facie are not true.

The entire emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioners was laid on the fact that the petitioner No. 1 has the obligation of taking care of her three minor children, who are suffering on account of her incarceration. This, however, cannot be the only ground which can be considered for grant of bail in such like offences. While considering the issue of grant of bail, ordinarily, the nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction is also one of the grounds, which has to be kept in mind.

Learned counsel for the petitioners however, could not draw the attention of the Court to any of the circumstances, which could satisfy this Court that there was no material on record, in regard to the accusations levelled against them, which could show that the accusation levelled was not true.

In that view of the matter, I cannot persuade myself to come to the conclusion that this is not a case where there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the petitioners is not true. Be that as it may, the prayer for grant of bail is rejected. It shall, however, be open to the petitioners to apply afresh for bail before the Trial Court after evidence of the material witnesses is recorded.

Bail application is, accordingly, rejected.