MEENA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Present application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for grant of regular bail in connection with Radhanagar P.S. case No. 12 of 2022 (S.T. Case No. 230 of 2022) for the offence under Sec. 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I, Rajmahal.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that petitioner no. 1, Meena Devi @ Mina Devi and petitioner no.2, Nitai Mandal are mother in law and father in law respectively of the deceased, who have been falsely implicated in this case without attributing any specific role. Earlier anticipatory bail of the petitioners was rejected during the course of investigation of the case vide A.B.A. No. 7676 of 2022 order dtd. 22/11/2022. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been submitted in this case against the petitioners and they are in judicial custody since 17/2/2023. It is further submitted that there was tense relationship between the deceased and her husband. It is further submitted that admittedly, the marriage was solemnized before six years of the alleged occurrence in a temple without any dowry. Since after the marriage till the death of deceased no complaint before any authority or even before the panchayat was ever made by the informant against the petitioners in connection with harassment of the deceased or subjecting her to cruelty by the petitioners arising out of any demand of additional dowry and its non-fulfillment. Now a days there is tendency to rope all the family members even innocent relatives in dowry death cases simply because related to husband. Present case is also a burning example of false implication. It is further submitted that due to domestic dispute with her husband the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself in the night lying by ceiling of the room. It is further submitted that no presumption under Sec. 113(B) or 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is attracted against these petitioners in order to fasten their liability with the alleged offence of dowry death. Petitioners are old and infirm persons and undertake to co-operate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of the case. In the course of investigation it is revealed by independent witnesses also that due to extra vagrancy and addiction of liquor of the husband, they were frequently quarreling with each other, but there is no role of the petitioners in the entire episode. Hence, petitioners may be enlarged on bail.