Allahabad High Court
Vaibhav Dixit vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 February, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1573 of 2020 Applicant :- Vaibhav Dixit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Vaish,Ashok Mehta (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of O.P. No. 2 and the same is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yogesh Kumar Vaish, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and Sri B.A. Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This anticipatory bail application (u/s 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 344 of 2019 under sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 306 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.
As per F.I.R. which has been lodged by the brother of the deceased, his sister, deceased married the applicant on 24.04.2019 and soon thereafter, her father-in-law, mother-in-law and the applicant started torturing her for demand of additional dowry and despite having convinced thoroughly, they would not stop making this demand and later on compromise was held in Lucknow but even then no change took place in their behaviour and in last September, 2019, a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was demanded as Additional Dowry and when inability was expressed to provide the same, deceased was thrown out of her matrimonial home. On 03.11.2019, a phone call was received by the deceased wherein she was mentally tortured for non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- and it was said that in case the said demand is not fulfilled by her father's side, she should die there and that she would not be brought to the matrimonial home and pursuant to that, on 4.11.2019 at about 7:00 p.m., she committed suicide by hanging herself from first floor of the house.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that he has apprehension of imminent arrest; victim/deceased was suffering from schizophrenia right from the beginning and has further drawn attention of the Court towards the medical examination report, documents regarding which are annexed at page nos. 33-34 of the paper book in which she was found to be suffering from mixed obsessional thoughts with schizo-affective disorder and the treatment papers are also annexed in order to prove that she was suffering from the said ailment even prior to getting married with the accused applicant. Attention is also drawn of the Court towards the page no. 55 of the paper book in which deceased had addressed a complaint to S.H.O., Talkatora, Lucknow on 21.09.2019 stating that she wanted to stay with her husband. For the last 15 days because of her condition not being very good, she wanted to go to her parents' house but the accused applicant had told her that if she goes to her parents' house, she would never return to her matrimonial home and it is further mentioned therein that seven days after the marriage, the victim began to be suffering from depression and about this, she also informed to her husband, her sister and parents. About 15 days thereafter, she came to her husband's house but none was letting her enter her matrimonial house from 2:00 p.m. till 6:00 p.m. with her belongings, she had to remain standing outside the house of the applicant. After having drawn attention towards this, it is emphatically argued that no mention has been made in this that she was at all tortured for demand of dowry rather the same is an after thought in order to falsely implicate the accused along with his entire family. He also drawn attention towards the Compromise document which is annexed at page no. 58 of the paper book which is stated to have been signed by the father-in-law, mother-in-law, deceased herself and two brothers of the deceased in which it has been mentioned that the deceased would get herself treated while staying in her parents' house and her father-in-law would bear expenses of her treatment. Again after pointing out this documents, it was argued that there was no case of demand of dowry at all which is clearly evident from this documents, therefore, it is argued that this is a very good case in favour of the husband of the deceased. Attention is also drawn of the Court towards the Civil Suit filed under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, documents regarding which is annexed at page nos. 41 to 52 of the paper book for annulment of marriage which is filed by the accused applicant on 6.09.2019. It is further argued that applicant was apprehending that mis-happening could happen with the victim because of which this suit was filed for seeking annulment of marriage but soon thereafter on 4.11.2019, she committed suicide at the house of her parents for which the applicant cannot be held responsible. Accused is innocent. He has no criminal history. Parents of accused have also been granted Anticipatory Bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.01.2020 in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 367 of 2020. If released on bail he would not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the investigation.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer of grant of Anticipatory Bail and argued that within five months of marriage, cruel treatment meted out to the deceased resulted in death of the deceased as she had to commit suicide because of being mentally and physically harassed. It is further argued that this suicide had to be committed by her because of non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- and whatever documentary evidence has been annexed, cannot be held to be sufficient to prove that she was suffering from any ailment from before and she suffered such depression only after marriage because of ill-treatment.
Taking into consideration the gravity of accusation, having gone through the entire evidence which has come on record and after having heard both the sides, I am of the view that though there does not appear to be any evidence to show that any demand of dowry has been made as nothing is found to have been mentioned in this regard in the complaint made by victim (deceased) herself addressed to S.H.O., Talkatora but it reflects that some harsh treatment would have taken been to the deceased as she was made to stand outside the house of applicant for long hours and which led her into depressing condition and there being possibility of his fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find good ground for enlarging the applicant, Vaibhav Dixit on anticipatory bail in this case.
The anticipatory bail application of the applicant Vaibhav Dixit, is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 10.2.2020 A. Mandhani