news details |
|
|
| Court granted bail to husband involved in dowry death case | | |
Jammu, October, 24:- Second Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Mr. AK Koul granted bail to Kuldeep Singh husband of deceased who committed suicide on May 8, 2006 by putting herself on fire with the direction that accused be set-free provided he furnishes surety in the amount of Rs 25000/- and personal bond of like amount with conditions.
According to the prosecution case that the wife of the petitioner, who was in wed-lock with petitioner on February 23, 2006 committed suicide on May 8, 2006 by putting herself on fire, the charge against the petitioner is that he was coercing his wife deceased to manage a santro car and gold bangle for him, which as per prosecution case she failed to managed. The petitioner is said to her assaulted physically as well with the connivance of his mother and sister. The ill-treatment perpetrated by petitioner and his family members on the deceased, led her to commit suicide, initially, proceedings u/s 174 CrPC were initiated and later it was found that petitioner, his mother and sister are involved in the commission of offences u/s 306/498-A RPC. Registration of case followed and ultimately the complicity of petitioner and his mother and sister was established, the petitioner who has been arrested on September, 2006 and is by now in custody.
While grating bail Mr. AK Koul after hearing the Advocate Prince Khanna appearing for the petitioner and APP appearing for the state, said that it is not always true that when ever a death takes place within seven years of marriage the presumption of abetment to suicide would arise. We are aware that diverse situations arise day in and day out and it may always not to be true that husband might have abetted the commission of suicide. The petitioner is an army personal and a certificate appears to have been issued by Lt Col 13 JAK Rifles that petitioner was present on duty in the unit on the date of occurrence. So the petitioner as on the date of occurrence was on duty, which is manifest from the police report also. Another circumstances which to my under standing is worth consideration is that petitioner has executed a will before his officer on April 21, 2006 where through he appears to have bequeathed his entire property to his wife. This is almost 15 days before the occurrence. The Defense counsel submitted that would the relations of petitioner and deceased be strained, the petitioner would not have made a will in favour of deceased. Apart from that there is a letter of Sarpanch/Numbedar of Village Palainwala who stated that petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the case. All these circumstances do not show the innocence of petitioner because this is not the stage to say so, but one thing is certain that these are definitely the mitigating circumstances, so far as, bail plea of the petitioner is concerned. So it may not be fair to conclude at this stage when trial is yet to begin that presumption arises against the petitioner in view of Evidence Act section 113-A and referred criminal judgments further observed that petitioner has been found involved along with his mother and sister but both of them already been enlarged on bail and so petitioner stands on same footing cannot be declined bail simply for the reason that he is a male. The petitioner is yet to be found guilty at trial, so it would be too harsh for him to suffer incarceration in jail without any purposed being served. So court is of the view that it is not a case where bail can be declined, with these observations bail granted to the petitioner with the direction that he would attend the trial regularly without fail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
