AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—These petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on allegations of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is alleged by the complainant one Gouse Khan father of Raziya Bhanu @ Naziya Bhanu (now deceased) to the effect that Raziya Bhanu being married to accused No. 1 about seven years prior to the date of the incident. They had two children by the marriage and that the accused No. 1 had been provided with a large dowry at the time of wedding and they lived relatively peacefully together. But after the birth of the second child, it transpires that Raziya Bhanu was subjected to much harassment and cruelty on demands for more dowry and it is in that background it is alleged that she was driven to commit suicide by these petitioners along with accused No. 1.
The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 respectively, are the sisters-in-law of the deceased. And petitioner No. 3 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. They were all living away from the matrimonial home of accused No. 1. Therefore, the allegations that all these petitioners were instrumental in having driven Raziya Bhanu to commit suicide and that they had abetted and instigated accused No. 1 to force Raziya Bhanu to commit suicide, is a matter which would have to be established at the trial. It is not in dispute that they were living in different houses and had little to do, on a constant basis, with the deceased.
The learned Government Pleader would seek time to file objections on the footing that the allegations are of a serious nature, involving the death of a woman within seven years from the date of her marriage and therefore by the very circumstance the allegations take on a different colour and hence opposes the grant of bail.
The Trial Court has taken a strict view of the facts and circumstances in rejecting the bail petition. While it is evident that death has occurred which was apparently a suicide, the question whether these petitioners had abetted the commission of the crime or instigated, or otherwise had any hand in the death of the deceased would necessarily have to be established at the trial. On the primary circumstance that they did not live together with the deceased and accused No. 1 and the fact that they are all house wives and women aged between 28 & 52 years, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand only), each, with one solvent surety each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioners shall not tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
(iii) The petitioners shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing.
(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below without prior permission.