Ram Krishna Dubey and Champa Dubey vs The State of Jharkhand

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

Petitioners are accused in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 368 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4974 of 2010 registered under Sections 498A & 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code which is pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

It is disclosed in the written report that Bindia (deceased), who was married with accused Vivek Kumar Dubey, was subjected to torture and treated with cruelty for want of more dowry demanded in terms of cash to purchase a flat in Mumbai. The demand made by the accused persons and threat given was duly reported by the deceased to her parents through letters. Since the deceased was carrying pregnancy and she was not taken proper care by the accused persons, she was brought by the informant on 01.06.2010. When the deceased felt delivery pain, she was admitted to a nursing home on 19.10.2010 and after giving birth to a female child she was scolded by her husband and in-laws on phone as a result the condition of the deceased became precarious and she took her last breath in nursing home.

It is submitted that it is admitted case of the prosecution that husband was not present in the hospital at the relevant point of time. The call details report, obtain by the I.O. during investigation in the case diary, shows that the petitioners had also not attended the deceased in the said nursing home. As a matter of fact Bindia died her natural death in the nursing home which is apparent from the statement of the doctor and that is the reason no post mortem was done. There is delay in lodging in F.I.R.

Learned Counsel for the State as well as the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased had delivered a female child after undergoing cesarean operation. Even in the hospital the deceased was not spared and these two petitioners repeated their demand and hurled threat.

I have gone through the First Information Report and the annexures as well as the case diary. These documents show that the deceased was subjected to torture and treated with cruelty during her life time and she was not taken care of during her pregnancy as a result she was brought by her parents. It is also admitted fact that the deceased was admitted to the hospital by her parents and the cremation was also done by them. The petitioners or the husband had not taken care of even during pregnancy or at the stage she was admitted to the hospital or even after her death.

Considering aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am not inclined to enlarge the above named petitioners on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands rejected. Petitioners are directed to surrender in the court below within a fortnight for seeking regular bail which will be considered by the Court below without being prejudiced with this order.