Pramod Kumar Jain and Others vs State

V.K. Shali, J.—This order shall dispose of two bail applications bearing No. 283/12 and 1164/12 filed by Pramod Kumar Jain and his wife

Sushma Jain in respect of F.I.R. No. 19/2010, u/s 498A/304B/34 I.P.C. registered by PS : Mansarovar Park in respect of which trial is pending

before the Court of Sessions. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that both Pramod Kumar Jain and Sushma Jain are in judicial custody since

20.9.2010 and the material witnesses have already been examined. It has been contended by him that Shashank Jain, the son of the present

petitioners and the brother in law of the deceased had already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2010 and on the basis

of parity, the present petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail.

On merits, it was contended that the testimony of the main witness i.e. PW-1/ Girender Singh, the father of the deceased is full of improvements

and contradictions which dearly shows that there was no demand of dowry or subjecting the deceased to any mental or physical cruelty before the

death of the deceased. It is also contended by him that the extensive cross examination of the witness dearly reveals that the said witness has made

considerable improvements over the oral statement which he had made to the police.

As regards, the parity with the case of Shashank Jain, it was contended by him that except at one place, the name of Sushma Jain does not

appear in the F.I.R. or in the statement of PW-1 and therefore, she has been only made as a scapegoat on account of the fact that she happens to

be the mother in law of the deceased.

Per contra, the learned APP. took the Court through the statement of PW-1/Girender Singh and referred to the portions of the statements,

where not only the name of Pramod Kumar Jain but also of Sushma Jain has appeared. He has contended that there is sufficient evidence which

has been brought on record by the prosecution, so as to implicate the present petitioners in the commission of serious offences of dowry death and

culpable homicide of which they have been charged and therefore, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail as there is every possibility that they

may flee away from the processes of law.

As regards the parity, it was contended by the learned APP. that no parity can be claimed by the petitioners with the case of their son Shashank

Jain, because there is no allegation which prima fade, proves the demand of dowry qua Shashank Jain. In addition to this, it has been contended by

him that it has been prima facie, established that Shashank Jain was living separately while as, the petitioners, though they were living separately,

but were living in the same locality and they had been frequently visiting the house of the deceased and it is during this interaction that the petitioners

used to subject the deceased to various atrocities with a view to demand dowry which ultimately resulted in her unfortunate death that too after few

days of her marriage.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP and gone through the

statement of PW-1 as well as the other voluminous records which have been annexed along with the bail applications.

Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, certain facts are essential to be mentioned.

The elder son of the petitioners named Shivank Jain got married to one Anshu/deceased. This marriage had been solemnized secretly by the

parties without the consent of their parents on 18.5.2009.

A formal marriage function was held for the benefit of the community to give it a colour of an arranged marriage on 12.12.2009 in Aman

Banquet Hall, Rajender Nagar, Sahibabad (U.P.). The death of the deceased took place on 25.1.2010. Thus, the death of the deceased in the

instant case had taken place within a short span of almost 43/44 days from the date of solemnization of marriage. Before this period of 43/44 days,

the public witness/PW-1 Girender Singh, father of the deceased has testified that his daughter was subjected to demand of dowry in one way or

the other with a view to harass her. It has also come on record that the demands were even made five days before the marriage as a consequence

of which, the father of the deceased had to withdraw some money from his account and borrow some from other resources and pay a sum of Rs.

2 lacs to the father of the boy.

All these incidents which have taken place in this short span of 43/44 days have been graphically explained by the father of the deceased in his

testimony. The witness has been subjected to extensive cross examination and he is sought to be discredited by confronting him with his statement

which is purported to have been made by him first in point of time. It has been urged that all these details have not been given in his first statement

recorded u/S 161 Cr. P.C. It has been laid down by the Apex Court in number of cases that while dealing with the bail application of an accused,

the Court does not have to conduct a minute dissection of the evidence of the prosecution and only a bird''s eye view is to be taken on the basis of

overall evidence. The minute dissection of the evidence cannot be done on account of the fact that it is going to prejudice either of the two parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioners in the instant case during the course of his submissions has sought to do a minute dissection of the

testimony of PW-1 which I refrain to do. Suffice it would be here to mention that this Court has gone through the testimony of PW-1 and all other

relevant documents and certainly there are serious allegations against the petitioners which if seen in the light of the fact that the deceased was a

young woman, who lost her life within a short span of 43/44 days from the date of her formal marriage, becomes a serious issue and concern.

Therefore, with regard to the gravity of allegations and the nature of evidence which has been brought on record, which admittedly this Court has

seen, raises serious concern with regard to the grant of bail to the petitioners at this stage.

I feel that because of the serious nature of allegations, it will not be just and proper to extend the benefit of regular bail to the petitioners at this

stage when the trial is on.

So far as the question of parity is concerned, I do not feel that any parity can be drawn between the case of Shashank Jain i.e. the second son

of the petitioners and the present petitioners who happens to be the parents in law of the deceased, on account of the fact that admittedly

Shashank Jain was living separately and there is neither any allegation of demand of dowry by him nor does his name figure anywhere in the

testimony of PW-1. As against this, the names of the petitioners are repeatedly appearing in the statement of PW-1 and though they were living

separately, in the same locality at some distance but it has come on record that they were very frequently visiting the house of the deceased and

interfering in her matrimonial affair by subjecting her to demand of dowry in one way or the other. Accordingly, no parity can be drawn between

the two cases.

In the totality of circumstances, without going into the other parameters governing the grant of bail, I feel the very nature of allegations are so

serious that it do not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioners at this stage.

For the reasons mentioned above, the regular bail applications of both the petitioners are rejected. Expression of any opinion hereinabove may

not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.