Was it dengue ? Or dowry death ? In laws Get bail !!

In this case a young wife is supposed to be suffering form dengue and dies from cardio respiratory failure AFTER the husband admits her to a hospital !! Still husband and in laws are accused of dowry death and the pathetic family runs to HC for bail !!

State of marriages in india !!

****************

Jharkhand High Court

Tabarak Kotwar And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 December, 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4224 of 2015 
1. Tabarak Kotwar @ Tabrak Kotwar 2. Jaffaruddin @ Jabbaruddin Kotwar 3. Modo Khatoon 4. Mobarak Kotwar 5. Momina Khatoon, 6. Asiya Khatoon 7. Abida Khatoon 8. Charka Khan 9. Samsool Khan @ Md. Shamsul Khan @ Samsool Khan.. Petitioners. Versus
The State of Jharkhand... ... ... ... Opp. Party. *******

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY 
*******
 For the Petitioners : Mr. Shri Krishna Murari, Advocate. 
For the State : Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, A.P.P. 
For the Informant : Mr. A.K. Sinha, Advocate. **********
 03/ 15.12.2015 : Heard Mr. Shri Krishna Murari, learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned counsel apearing on behalf of the informant.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Kotwali (Pandra) P.S. Case No. 772 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 5339 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under section 3 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act.

The allegation, which has been leveled against the petitioners in the first information report, is that after the marriage of the daughter of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner no.1, there was a demand of dowry by some of the accused persons, which resulted into taking the deceased to Imphal by the petitioner no.1, which was the workplace of petitioner no.1.

Allegation had also been leveled that subsequently the deceased had become pregnant and petitioner no.1 has compelled her to abort her child for which some medicines were forcibly administered to her and she was treated in Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Hospital at Imphal on 20.07.2014. Subsequently, the daughter of the informant had returned back from Imphal and the complainant got her treated at several Hospitals in Ranchi, but ultimately she died on 16.09.2014.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are husband and in-laws of the deceased, who have been implicated in the present case by the informant, who happens to be the father of the deceased. It has further been submitted that the allegations, which have been leveled against all the petitioners, are general and omnibus in nature.

It has further been submitted that on own showing of the complainant the petitioner no.1 himself had taken the deceased to Imphal and when she was suffering from vomiting the petitioner no.1 had got her immediately treated in Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Hospital at Imphal on 20.07.2014. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased had died when she was in her parent’s house and, in fact, prior to her death she was admitted in Alam Hospital & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. at Ranchi and cause of death as mentioned in the death certificate totally falsifies the allegations made in the first information report, in which it has been opined that she died on account of Cardio-respiratory arrest, multiple organ failure and she was also suffering from Dengu positive while she was carrying pregnancy of 3 ½ months.

Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that all the accused persons had with common intention tortured the daughter of the informant for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It has also been submitted that the allegation of administering medicine by the petitioner no.1 upon the deceased has been substantiated by the prescription issued by the Doctor treating the deceased in Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Hospital at Imphal on 20.07.2014, which clearly depicts that the daughter of the complainant was suffering from vomiting and blood was also found present in the same. It has, thus, been submitted that considering the allegations, which have been leveled against the petitioners, none of the petitioners deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.

The daughter of the complainant had died on 16.09.2014 and the complaint case was filed on 16.10.2014. In the complaint Petition, which has been originally filed the allegations against the petitioner no.1 seems to be specific with respect to administering of medicines for termination of the pregnancy and, in fact, the prescription of the concerned Hospitals do suggest that the daughter of the complainant was suffering from vomiting. Apart from the above, it also appears that the deceased was residing with the petitioner no.1 at Imphal and the incident had taken place there and thereafter she was sent to her parent’s house, where the deceased was treated in several Hospitals and ultimately died in Alam Hospital & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi, on 16.09.2014.

In view of the specific nature of allegation leveled against the petitioner no.1, who happens to be the husband of the deceased, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.1. Accordingly, the prayer on behalf of the petitioner no.1 for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.

However, considering the nature of allegation leveled against the other petitioners and since the deceased used to reside separately at Imphal for most of the time with petitioner no.1, her husband, the complicity of these petitioners becomes non-existant.

Moreover the death certificate also reveals that the deceased was suffering from vomiting and death was on account of Cardio-respiratory arrest, multiple organ failure and Dengue.

Regard being had to the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application so far as petitioner nos. 2 to 9 are concerned. Accordingly, the petitioner nos. 2 to 9, above named, are directed to surrender in the Court below within a period of three weeks from today and on their so surrendering they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with Kotwali (Pandra) P.S. Case No. 772 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 5339 of 2015 , subject to the terms and conditions as enumerated under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

Sharma/-

*********
Standard disclaimers apply

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s