Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed under Section 4391 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail in criminal proceeding for alleged offences under Sections 498-A2 and 304-B3 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a single-judge bench of Rajendra Prakash Soni, J., denied to grant bail due to the seriousness of the allegations and the prima facie evidence against the petitioner. However, the court noted investigatory inaccuracies and called for administrative action against the Investigating Officer concerned.
“…inaccuracy and assumption of investigation might significantly affect the case of the prosecution.”
In the instant matter, the petitioner, who is currently in custody following the filing of an FIR for alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC, filed a petition under Section 439 of the CrPC seeking bail. The petitioner argued that the death of deceased was due to accidental fall from staircase. The petitioner contended that the injuries sustained (a simple injury below her eye, bandage marks, drip administration, and stitched wounds) were consistent with an accidental fall and not with the charges under Section 304-B, which involves dowry death. The petitioner asserted that he is innocent and claimed the case against him is false and baseless, with no concrete evidence linking him to the crime. The petitioner further argued that the allegations are based on conjecture rather than solid evidence. However, the prosecution argued that there is substantial evidence indicating the petitioner’s guilt. The prosecution contended that the severity of the alleged offence and the evidence on record supports the gravity of the charges, making the petitioner ineligible for bail.
The Court noted that the deceased’s death occurred at her in-laws’ house. The Court noted that the petitioner’s claim that the fall from the staircase led to her injuries is not substantiated by witness statements recorded under Section 1614 of the CrPC. The Court observed that the Post-mortem Report and medical evidence suggests an unnatural death.
The Court stated that the Investigating Officer’s assumption about the fall appears to be an attempt to provide a defense for the petitioner rather than a factual account. The Court criticised the Investigating Officer for inaccuracies and shortcomings in the investigation and charge sheet filed by him, which could undermine the prosecution’s case. The Court noted that “It was imperative on the part of the Investigating Officer that investigation of an offence such as dowry-death maintains a high level of accuracy and candidness.”
Considering the gravity of the allegations and the prima facie evidence, the Court found no grounds to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The Court denied the petitioner’s bail application under Section 439 CrPC due to the serious nature of the allegations and the evidence presented.
The Court directed that the present order to be forwarded to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, and the concerned Superintendent of Police for information and taking necessary action against the concerned Investigating Officer regarding the shortcomings in the investigation. The Court dismissed the bail application as meritless.
[Prabhu Ram v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7769/2024, Decided on 19-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rahul Sharma and Mr. Prashant Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP, Counsel for the Respondent
1. Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4. Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
