KUSHAL AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-2022-2-134
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 23,2022

Kushal Agarwal Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BANSI LAL VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
DR. V.K. MISHRA -VS- STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [REFERRED TO]
SATBIR SINGH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
PRASANNA KUMAR ROY KARMAKAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. JAGGU RAM [REFERRED TO]
CANTONMENT BOARD MEERUT VS. K P SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KALABHARATI ADVERTISING VS. HEMANT VIMALNATH NARICHANIA [REFERRED TO]
KANAKA REKHA NAIK VS. MANOJ KUMAR PRADHAN [REFERRED TO]
REKHA MURARKA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA AGGARWAL VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J. - (1.)Apprehending arrest in connection with Alipore Police Station Case No.15 of 2021 dated 17th February, of 2021 under Ss. 498A/306/34 and later added Ss. 406/304B of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC), the present application has been preferred.
(2.)Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that upon negotiation between two families, the petitioner's marriage with the victim was held on 9/2/2020 at Umaid Bhawan Palace, Jodhpur. After marriage the couple immediately left for honeymoon to Dubai and Oman for about six days. Upon returning to India, the petitioner's family arranged a post marriage celebration on 23/2/2020 in their ancestral house at Purulia. Thereafter the couple attended various parties and ceremonies together. From November, 2020 till 11/2/2021, the couple visited different places. But unfortunately thereafter on 16/2/2021 the victim fell down from the 3rd floor of her matrimonial house and succumbed to her injuries. On 17/2/2021 the victim's father lodged a complaint and the present case was registered under Ss. 498A/306/34 of IPC. In continuation with the said complaint, the victim's father submitted a further representation dtd. 25/2/2021. In course of investigation, Ss. 406/304B of IPC were added at the behest of the investigating agency. Alleging inter alia that the victim's family members were publishing disturbing and defamatory statements, the petitioner's father preferred a Title Suit No.208 of 2021 and in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code filed in connection with the said suit an order was passed on 25/6/2021 restraining the defendant nos.2 to 4 therein from publishing any defamatory and derogatory statements or news, posts, videos. Alleging inter alia that the victim's father had operated a bank locker, jointly held by him and the victim, suppressing the fact that the victim had already expired, petitioner's cousin, namely, Rahul Agarwal lodged a complaint on 22/7/2021 and the same was registered as Kalighat Police Station Case No.78 of 2021 dtd. 22/7/2021 under Ss. 404, 406, 409, 388, 506 and 120B of IPC. In the same a progress report was submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Kalighat Police Station on 8/9/2021. In the midst thereof, on 17/4/2021 a non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner and an anticipatory bail application was initially preferred before the learned Court below on 24/5/2021 when the case diary was called for. On 29/5/2021 though the case diary was produced the petitioner's advocate prayed for repeated adjournments on 2/6/2021 and on 9/6/2021. Surprisingly on 15/6/2021 the petitioner withdrew the said application with liberty to file afresh. Thereafter the present application was filed before this Court in the month of October, 2021. The application was heard on 8/11/2021 and a coordinate Bench of this Court observed that 'since we are in the process of hearing this application for anticipatory bail, we trust and hope that no adverse action shall be taken against the petitioner till the disposal of the application'.
(3.)Mr. Luthra, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the relationship between the victim and her in-laws was cordial throughout. There was no demand for dowry and the victim was never treated cruelly. Even in the first complaint lodged by the victim's father on 17/2/2021, there is no allegation to the effect that there was any demand for dowry. About a week thereafter on 25/2/2021, a further representation was submitted by him alleging that there had been incessant demand of various articles from the victim and her family. There is no proximate nexus between the death of the victim and cruelty based on dowry and the ingredients of Sec. 304B of IPC are not attracted. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the cases of Satbir Singh versus State of Haryana, reported in (2021) 16 SCC 1 and Bansi Lal versus State of Punjab, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 477.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.