Dheemant Singh vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—In this 2nd bail application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ''the Cr.P.C.''), prayer for bail has been made on behalf of accused-applicant Dheemant Singh, s/o Balwant Singh Rawat, in Case Crime No. 268 of 2007, under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kavi Nagar, district Ghaziabad.

The first bail application bearing No. 15520 of 2007 was decided by another Bench of this Court, vide order dated 30.10.2007, whereby the bail was granted. The said order was challenged by the complainant Subhash Chandra Singh in the Hon''ble Supreme Court by means of Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2009, which was decided vide order dated 20.4.2009 (Annexure-3 to this bail application), whereby after setting aside the order dated 30.10.2007, the matter was remitted to this Court for fresh consideration and disposal by reasoned order. Thereafter, the bail was heard by another Bench of this Court and vide order dated 18.5.2009 (Annexure-4), the bail application was rejected. Hence, this second bail application.

A first information report was lodged by Subhash Chandra Singh, s/o Ram Prasad Singh on 12.5.2007, at P.S. Kavi Nagar, district Ghaziabad, where a case under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, D.P. Act was registered at Crime No. 268 of 2007 against Dheemant Singh (applicant herein), his father Balwant Singh, Mother Madhur and sister Madhuri. The allegations made in the first information report (Annexure-2), in brief, are that marriage of the daughter of the complainant had taken place on 15.2.2004 with Dheemant Singh, s/o Balwant Singh and after the marriage, the accused persons were subjecting her making demand of dowry. It is also alleged in the first information report that the accused-persons committed murder of the deceased by throwing her on the railway track, due to which she died on 10.5.2007 being crushed by train.

I have heard arguments at length of Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel alongwith Sri Arun Srivastava and Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh advocates, appearing for the applicant and A.G.A. Sri Surendra Singh for the State and also perused the entire material on record.

The first and foremost submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant was that the applicant has remained confined in jail for more than two years, but even the charge has not been framed in S.T. No. 1253 of 2008 and hence on this new ground, the applicant deserves bail, because he cannot be confined in jail for indefinite period without trial. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards the copy of the order-sheet which has been filed with supplementary-affidavit dated 18.1.2010, which shows that till 30.11.2009 charge was not framed against the accused persons including the applicant.

Certain arguments on merit also were made by the learned Counsel for the parties. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that the deceased had committed suicide by herself sitting on the railway track, due to which she was crushed by the train and hence the offence punishable u/s 304B, I.P.C. is not made out in the present case, as there is no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the applicant or other accused persons for or in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. It was also submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that the deceased Smt. Shobhana was living happily with her husband Dheemant Singh (applicant) and son. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards the joint report (Annexure-1) submitted by father of the deceased and father of the applicant to P.S. Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad on 11.5.2007. It was also submitted in this context by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the deceased Smt. Shobhana had disappeared from the house on 10.5.2007 and search for her was made jointly by the accused-persons and father of the deceased and when she could not be traced out on 10.5.2007, joint application (Annexure-1) was given to the police by Subhash Chandra Singh, father of the deceased and Sri Balwant Singh Rawat, father of the applicant. It was further submitted in this very context that no complaint was made by the father of the deceased on 10.5.2007 or 11.5.2007 about subjecting the deceased to cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry by the accused persons and at the time of post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased and her funeral, the father of the deceased and his family members were present, but they neither lodged any first information report, nor made any complaint to the police or any other authority alleging harassment of the deceased by the accused persons for demand of dowry and with mala fide intention, false first information report was lodged by father of the deceased on 12.5.2007.

Next submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant was that even the offence u/s 306, I.P.C. would not be made out against the applicant, as the deceased had committed suicide being annoyed due to the jokes made by the applicant, in which he used to say that the deceased is of black complexion and hence he would marry again with some beautiful lady. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant was that if any women being of black colour commits suicide being annoyed due to the jokes made of by her husband or any other persons on this ground, then Section 306, I.P.C. would not be attracted in such case and the person making jokes cannot be held liable for committing suicide by the deceased women. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards the statements of Smt. Sheela Singh (Mother of the deceased), Vikram Singh (brother of deceased), Mahendra Kumar (uncle of deceased), Pramod Kumar (another uncle of deceased), Smt. Shashikala (aunt of deceased), Smt. Joti (another aunt of deceased) and Ram Prasad (grand father of deceased), which have been filed with supplementary-affidavit filed on 18.5.2009 in the First Bail Application No. 15520 of 2007, record of which has been summoned in present bail application. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that from the statements of all these witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, this fact is borne out that the deceased was of black complexion. In this very context, my attention was drawn towards the affidavit of Sri P.S. Batola, which was filed on 26.7.2007 in the first bail application as supplementary-affidavit, in which it is averred that husband of the deceased used to crack jokes with his wife that you are a lady of black complexion and he would marry again with some beautiful lady, but his jokes were not liked by his wife (deceased) and in the night prior to the incident also, some hot words were exchanged over the said jokes, due to which the deceased had committed suicide being hot tempered lady. My attention was also drawn towards uncontroverted affidavit of Sri Balwant Singh Rawat (father of the applicant), which has been filed in support of the present bail application, in para 20 whereof it is averred that the deceased Sobhana Singh was a short tempered lady and she always get annoyed on pity things and from the incident it appears that she get annoyed on any domestic issue which led her to commit suicide. My attention was further drawn towards the statements of the witnesses Roki, Banwari Lal, Kali Charan Munshi, Pintu, Lajjawati, Vijay, Vijay s/o Raju Lal, Smt. Krishna and Smt. Seema, copies whereof were filed in the first bail application as Annexure-4, which have been recorded during investigation by the Investigating Officer, in which these witnesses have stated that a young woman came weeping on 10.5.2007 at about 10-11 a.m. from towards Rajapur crossing and sat on the railway track, who was crushed by Rajdhani Express, which came from Ghaziabad side. Drawing my attention towards all these papers, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that there is sufficient evidence in the case diary to show that the deceased was not thrown by the applicant or any other persons on the railway track as alleged in the first information report and she had committed suicide on 10.5.2007 in between 10-11 a.m. by sitting on the railway track due to which she was crushed by Rajdhani Express, for which the applicant cannot be held liable and hence the offence punishable u/s 306, I.P.C. also would not be made out against him.

The bail application was vehemently opposed by the learned A.G.A. contending that suicidal death is also covered u/s 304B, I.P.C. and since the deceased was being harassed by the accused persons making demand of dowry and she died within the period of seven years of her marriage, hence in this heinous crime, the applicant should not be released on bail.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Counsel for parties. Without expressing any opinion about merit of the case, but keeping in view the fact that it is a case of suicide, as is evident from the statements of eye-witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure as mentioned hereinabove and considering the fact that the applicant has already remained confined in jail for more than two years, but even the charge was not framed till 30.11.2009 in S.T. No. 1253 of 2008, on this new ground, the applicant may be released on bail, as he cannot be confined in jail for indefinite period without trial.

Consequently, the second bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant Dheemant Singh, s/o Balwant Singh Rawat be released on bail in Case Crime No. 268 of 2007, under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, D.P. Act, P.S. Kavi Nagar, district Ghaziabad on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 40,000 and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned and executing an undertaking with following conditions:

� The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating the witnesses.

� He shall co-operate with speedy trial and will not abscond.

� He shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

On violation of any of aforesaid conditions, the prosecution would be at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail.