Jitendra Nath Trivedi vs State of U.P.

B.L. Yadav, J.—This is an application for bail u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974. The FIR was lodged on 28.12.86 at P.S. Naubasta, District Kanpur by Sri Shiv Prakash Mishra, father of the injured Smt. Shefali. The FIR disclosed the offence Under Sections 498-A/323/325/307 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Crime No. 545 of 1986). The occurrence was dated 21/22.12.1986 at about 11.12 p.m.

The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR was that the informant, an Assistant Chief Officer in the Reserve Bank of India, who was a resident of 3-a/130, Azad Nagar, Kanpur, has married his younger daughter Km. Shefali (now Smt Shefali), aged about 22 years, in March 1986 to Jitendra Nath Trivedi, the applicant, who was a resident of 84-Y, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur and was employed in a Bank. He was lateron selected to the officer''s post and was posted in Allahabad Bank at Jaunpur and used to come on Sunday to his home at 84-Y, Kidwai Nagar. After a short span of time from the date of marriage, the applicant and his mother used to demand more dowry including conveyance and Smt. Shefali, the injured was being beaten also just to pressurise the demand for dowry. In the night of occurrence the applicant and his mother had given beating to Smt. Shefah and she was thrown from the third storey of the house with a view that she may die. Her both legs were fractured at three places and she also sustained injuries on her head and back. After he received message on phone on 26.12.86 in Jammu, he rushed to Kanpur on 27.12.86 at 10 P.M. and lodged the report on 28.12.86. The injured Smt. Shefali was admitted in the Emergency Ward of Ursula Hospital, Kanpur. It was alleged that with a view to kill her, she was being beaten and was thrown from the third storey of the house and she was not admitted in the hospital, nor any message was received by hi n from her husband or in-laws. A copy of the FIR has been filed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit and the injury report has also been filed. In all she received 8 injuries. From the case diary it appears that she had injuries in her both eyes, eye lids injuries over scalp, multiple injuries around left ankel, fracture of medical malleolus, fracture over tibia, multiple fracture around right ankle etc. The statement of Smt. Shefali, the injured was recorded by the Magistrate u/s 164 of the Code.

Learned Counsel for the applicant urged that no case u/s 307, IPC was made out and that the FIR was delayed. The occurrence was dated 21/22.12.86 while the report was lodged on 28.12.86, that the applicant was a respectable person and that a prima facie case for bail has been made out. Learned Counsel for the State and the complainant, on the other hand, urged that no case for bail was made out and the intention of the applicant was to kill the injured as her parents failed to pay more dowry and the attempt of the applicant was to kill his wife, but luckily she was saved, and that the applicant was not entitled to be released on bail.

It is well known that while considering the application for bail and in order to ascertain as to whether a prima facie case for bail has been made out or not, the court may take into consideration the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support of the same, the severity of punishment to be awarded, the conduct and character of the accused. Even though this case was argued at great length on merits, but at the stage of granting an application for bail they need not be discussed which might adversely affect the case and prejudice the accused. I have examined the injuries and the statement made by the injured Smt. Shefali and have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. Bride burning and dowry deaths cases or attempt to murder the bride for dowry is, in fact, such an inhuman act which has affected the entire community and the society at large. In fact, this is an offence affecting the whole community, even though its immediate victim may be a helpless individual.

Taking in to consideration the principles for granting bail, including magnitude and seriousness of the offence and the conduct of the applicant, no prima facie case in favour of the applicant has been made out. In such matters, as the present one, out of deterrent, preventive, retributive and reformative theories of punishment, the first two (deterrent and preventive) must be made applicable. Bride burning and dowry deaths or attempt to commit murder of the wife on refusal of parents of the bride to pay enhanced and fabulous dowry indicate deprivity and disposition of the persons demanding dowry. In other words it is killing or attempt to kill a person for mere wantonness and idiosyncrasy. The law does not take into account the status of the accused in such matters. In such cases recently their Lordships of the Supreme Court have given a word of caution in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Arun Kumar Roy, while disposing of criminal bail application arising out of anticipatory bail in a dowry death case. It was observed that there appears to be wide spread belief that dowry death cases are even now treated with carelessness at all levels. Even though that was a case for anticipatory bail but the magnitude and seriousness of the matter was pointed out. It was pointed out that in such matters the case should not be taken in casual way. I am accordingly of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for bail.

Before the judgment could be pronounced, a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the applicant indicating that the applicant has filled up a form for U.P. Civil Executive Service Examinations and that he has received an intimation card for the examination which is to commence from 27.4.87 and would conclude on 7.5.87, hence he maybe granted parole to enable him to appear in the said examination. Considering the seriousness of the offence I was not inclined to grant him even parole for the aforesaid period, but very reluctantly I pursuaded myself to grant parole to the applicant from 23.4.87 to 10.5.87 (both days inclusive).

In the result, no case for bail has been made out and the present application for bail is hereby rejected. However, very reluctantly I grant parole to the applicant for a period of eighteen days only so as to enable him to appear in the aforesaid examination.

In view of the discussions made here-in-before, let the applicant Jitendra Nath Trivedi be released on parole for a period of eighteen days, i.e. from 23.4.87 to 10.5.87 (both days inclusive), in Crime No. 545 of 1986 Under Sections 498A/323/325/307, IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Naubsta, District Kanpur, on his executing a personal bond of Rs. 5000/- and furnishing two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur. It is, however, made clear that the applicant shall surrender on 11.5.87, otherwise all coercive measures will be adopted to take him into custody.

Any observations made above need not be treated to be an expression of opinion on merits in the trial. The office is directed to issue a certified copy of this order by today on payment of usual charge.