Laxmi Raut vs State of Jharkhand, & ORS.

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

The petitioner has been made an accused in Lawalong P.S. Case No. 33 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 1053 of 2016 (S.T. No. 255 of 2016), registered for offence under Section 304(B)/34 IPC .

Contending that there is no evidence that the victim was harassed/tortured "soon before the death" in connection to demand of dowry and the acts alleged against the petitioner does not fall under explanation (1) to Section 498A IPC, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the ingredient under Section 304-B IPC is not made out and, therefore, the petitioner, who is in judicial custody since 27.08.2016, deserves grant to bail.

The death has occurred within seven years of the marriage. It is stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnised with the victim lady about three years of the date of occurrence. The cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem drowning which obviously is an unnatural death. A reading of the First Information Report discloses that the victim used to inform her parents telephonically, regularly, regarding harassment and torture in relation to demand of a 4-wheeler. The expression "soon before the death" has not been defined in the Code, however, it has been explained in judicial pronouncements. It depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The allegations in the First Information Report, prima-facie, attracts presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The petitioner is the husband of the victim lady.

The learned APP has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

In the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner and accordingly, this application is dismissed.