Mantu Thakur vs The State of Jharkhand

D.N. Upadhyay, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Petitioner is accused in a case registered u/s 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Itkhori P.S. Case No. 58 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 624 of 2010 which is pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra.

It reveals from the First Information Report that Chanchala Devi, who was married with the Petitioner, was found dead in her matrimonial home. The informant, after receiving information reached to the place during night at 1.00 a.m. and he found the dead body lying in the courtyard of the house but neither the husband nor the in-laws of the deceased were present in the house. It is also alleged that the demand of motorcycle and other articles were made by the accused for which the deceased was subjected to torture during her life time.

It is submitted that the Petitioner is in jail custody since more than one year and other co-accused namely Vishnu Devi, mother-in-law has been granted bail by a Bench of this Court vide B.A. No. 7456 of 2010. As a matter of fact the deceased had fallen into the well and the Petitioner is not responsible for her death.

Learned Counsel for the State opposed the prayer and placed carbon copy of the case diary before me.

Perused the case diary from which it appears that there was demand of dowry for which the deceased was subjected to torture. During her life time the relation 2. between the spouses was not cordial. At the time when the informant reached to the place the Petitioner and his family members were absconding and the death of the deceased was not reported to any legal authority. The post mortem report copied in para-61 indicates that the deceased was having injuries on her person and cause of death was asphyxia. The witnesses examined in the case diary have stated that deceased had fallen into the well and with the help of neighbors she was taken out but she was dead. After the dead body was taken out from the well, the Petitioner and his family members were not present in the house and they had not given information to police with regard to death of deceased whether it was suicidal, accidental or homicidal.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the Petitioner stands rejected.