EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Mar 1: Principal Sessions Judge Samba Mohd Akram Chowdhary rejected the pre-arrest bail application of one Shilpa in a dowry death case.
According to the police case that on January 1 this year, a woman identified as Palvi Gupta, wife of Abhishek Badyal allegedly committed suicide by hanging herself at her in-laws house in Ward Number 8 Samba.
Her body was found hanging with fan hook in the store room.
Court after hearing both the sides observed that after perusal of CD file reveals that petitioner has been named in the complaint based on which the FIR was lodged.
Moreover, her role has also been described by the deceased at Page No. 77 in her diary, the photocopy of which has been collected by the investigating agency during investigation. Jatin Gupta and Monal Gupta, brothers of the deceased, have specifically mentioned the name of petitioner in their statements recorded u/s 164-A CrPC, stating that she had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry.Ramesh Chander Gupta, father of the deceased, has also mentioned in his statement recorded u/s 164-A CrPC that sister-in-law of the deceased was subjecting her with cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry.
The deceased has died on 01.01.2021, having been married on 18.12.2018, within seven years of her marriage to accused Abhishek Bhadyal, as such there is a presumption that the petitioner, being sister-in-law of the deceased, had some role in her death. Allegation against the petitioner is that she subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment due to the dowry demands soon before her death and there is statutory provision with regard to presumption as to dowry death within seven years of the marriage.
Court further observed that the petitioner having been alleged to have subjected the deceased to cruelty and alleged of the commission of offence of dowry death punishable u/s 304-B IPC.
The petitioner/accused, in the considered opinion of this court, is not entitled to be admitted to bail, in anticipation of arrest. It is not a case where protection of bail in anticipation of arrest should be granted. With these observations, the Court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application. (JNF) |
