Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Asha Wadmare, Vishal Shejal, Shaikh Irfan, and Momin Abdul Shakil, filed an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 0267 of 2018 registered at Shivajinagar Police Station, Beed, for offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The case arose from the death of the wife of applicant No. 2, Vishal Shejal, who died by suicide within seven years of marriage. The first informant, Lata Ugalmugle, the mother of the deceased, alleged that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty for dowry by her husband and in-laws. The applicants contended that the allegations were vague and that there was no specific demand for dowry. The court examined the FIR and the materials on record and found that the allegations of harassment were general in nature and did not specifically mention any demand for dowry soon before the death. The court observed that the essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC, namely that the death occurred due to dowry demand, was not prima facie made out. The court also noted that the applicants had no criminal antecedents and that custodial interrogation was not necessary. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail to all applicants on certain conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 Cr.P.C. - Dowry Death - The court considered whether anticipatory bail should be granted to applicants accused of dowry death under Section 304-B IPC. The court held that where there is no prima facie evidence of demand for dowry soon before death, the stringent conditions of Section 304-B are not attracted, and bail may be granted. (Paras 1-10) B) Indian Penal Code - Dowry Death - Section 304-B IPC - Presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act - The court examined the applicability of the presumption of dowry death. It held that the presumption arises only if it is shown that soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry. In the absence of such evidence, the presumption cannot be invoked. (Paras 5-8) C) Dowry Prohibition Act - Demand for Dowry - Sections 3 and 4 - The court noted that the allegations of harassment must be specifically linked to demand for dowry. General allegations of ill-treatment without reference to dowry demand do not constitute an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and granted anticipatory bail to all applicants on executing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 each with one surety, subject to conditions including attendance at the police station as required, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without court permission.
Law Points
- Dowry death
- Section 304-B IPC
- Section 498-A IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- 1961
- Anticipatory bail
- Prima facie case
- Demand for dowry
- Harassment
- Cruelty
