Dowry Demand Doubtful As Marriage Solemnised Under CM Mass Marriage Scheme: Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Husband In 'Dowry Death' Case

“…the marriage of deceased was solemnized with applicant under the scheme launched by the State Government as noted above, therefore, prima-facie, it cannot be said that demand of dowry was ever raised by the applicant or any of his family members…”, a bench of Justice Rajeev Misra observed as it granted bail to accused husband who was arrested in June 2023.

The Court also took into account several other factors: the co-accused have been granted bail, the incident seems to be a case of suicide, the autopsy revealed no external or internal injuries on the deceased's body, there were no prior criminal complaints against the accused for dowry demands or cruelty before the death of the deceased, etc.

In its order, the Court also referred to the Apex Court 2023 Judgment in the case of Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal vs State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373, in which the top court observed that a detailed elaboration of evidence has to be avoided at the stage of grant/rejection of bail/anticipatory bail.

The case in brief

Before the Court, the counsel for the accused applicant contended that the applicant's marriage to the deceased was solemnised on June 25, 2021, under a state government scheme (CM Mass Marriage Scheme), and hence, there cannot be any issue concerning the demand for dowry.

It was further argued that as per the post-mortem report, the autopsy revealed no injuries on the deceased's body, indicating the applicant's innocence. The FSL report identified Aluminum Phosphate in the deceased's body, suggesting that the deceased possibly died by suicide by consuming the said chemical.

It was further submitted that the FIR's allegations of a dowry demand of Rs. 1 Lakh and a motorcycle are vague and unsupported by the first informant's statement. The bench was also apprised that the co-accused in the case have been released on bail.

Lastly, the applicant's counsel cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of Bihar 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141, arguing that the FIR's allegations of dowry demands and cruelty lack substantiation in both the FIR and the first informant's Section 161 CrPC statement. Therefore, these allegations should be disregarded at this stage.

On the other hand, the AGA, appearing for the state government, opposed the bail plea, arguing that the applicant on the ground that the incident occurred within two years of the marriage, and hence, he must prove his innocence as per Sections 106 and 113-B of the Evidence Act.

The AGA also contended that the applicant cannot seek parity with co-accused who have been granted bail and thus, the bail application should be denied. However, the AGA did not refute the factual and legal arguments presented by the applicant's counsel.

However, the Court, accepting the submissions of the applicant's counsel, granted him bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Appearances

Counsel for Accused-applicant: Safiullah

Counsel for Respondent: G.A.

Case title - Satyendra vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 488

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 488

Click Here To Read/Download Order