Devendranath Ravindranath … vs State Of Gujarat on 14 July, 2017

R/CR.MA/10162/2017 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 10162 of 2017
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10164 of 2017

DEVENDRANATH RAVINDRANATH SANYASI….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR AJ YAGNIK, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MOXA THAKKAR APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA

Date : 14/07/2017

ORAL ORDER

1. The present applications are filed under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection
with F.I.R. being C.R.No.I-18 of 2017 registered with Nikol
police station, Ahmedabad under
Sections 306, 304(B), 498A
and
114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the complainant that he is
having 4 children and out of them, the youngest daughter viz.
Ms.Shilpirani, aged about 25 years, had been married to the
applicant on 13.02.2013 and out of the said wedlock, a baby
boy was born, who is now aged about one and half years. It is
alleged in the complaint that their daughter – Ms.Usharani
informed the complainant that the applicant accused along
with other family members were demanding a sum of Rs.10

Page 1 of 5

HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Sat Jul 15 00:15:22 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/10162/2017 ORDER

lakh as dowry and the same was being supported by the
applicant and coupled with this fact, her brother-in-law and
sister-in-law were ill-treating her. It is further alleged in the
complaint that her parents consoled her and pacified her by
saying that with a view to save her married life and
considering the future of the child, she may keep quiet. It is
alleged in the complaint that on 22.01.2016, the daughter viz.
Ms.Shilpirani called her parents on phone and informed that
the family members of the applicant are continuing to demand
dowry. It is further alleged that on 23.01.2017, they received
a phone call informing that Ms.Shilpirani has passed away and
therefore, the complainant and his wife, who were at
Gorakhpur left for Ahmedabad. It is further the case of the
complainant that the deceased committed suicide by hanging
herself and, therefore, present complaint came to be lodged.

READ  Maninder Kaur And Anr vs Jagdev Singh on 30 May, 2017

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.A.J. Yagnik for the applicants
and learned A.P.P. Ms.Moxa Thakkar for the respondent –
State.

4. Learned advocate Mr.A.J. Yagnik for the applicants of
each application, who are husband and brother-in-law of the
deceased, would contend that co-accused, namely,
Ms.Dipaliben is enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of
this Court as per order dated 09.02.2017 passed in Criminal
Misc. Application No.4041 of 2017 and further, parents of the
applicants are protected by the co-ordinate Bench in the
proceedings of Special Criminal Application No.2178 of 2017 as
per order passed on 27.03.2017. In addition to it, learned
advocate Mr.A.J. Yagnik would contend that deceased –
Ms.Shilpirani was allowed to visit her parental home on various

Page 2 of 5

HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Sat Jul 15 00:15:22 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/10162/2017 ORDER

occasions and festivals and, therefore, allegation that if the
dowry demand is not fulfilled, she would not be allowed to go
to her parental home, is groundless. In support of such
submission, he placed affidavit of co-accused – Ms.Dipaliben
alongwith the documentary evidence in the form of various
railway and flight tickets, telephone bills, photographs etc. Not
only that, the applicants have also placed on record the
affidavits of six prosecution witnesses, namely,
Mr.Bhaveshbhai G. Bhavsar, Mr.Surendrasinh Chauhan,
Mr.Dilipkumar Prasad, Mr.Arunbhai Dhobi, Ms.Ushaben
Chauhan and Ms.Vimlaben Chauhan in order to establish that
statements recorded by the Investigating Agency on
25.01.2017, are untrue and not accurate. Such affidavits of the
prosecution witnesses are annexed at page Nos.158 to 181 of
the application.

READ  Ruchi Agarwal vs Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors on 5 November, 2004

5. Considering the chargesheet papers supplied by the
learned A.P.P. during the course of hearing, it appears that it is
a matter of fact that marriage span is of four years and the
deceased had child, aged about 15 months. Looking to the
allegations made in the F.I.R. itself, it appears that it is a case
of dowry death and before incident dated 23.01.2017, the
deceased was subjected to harassment for non-fulfillment of
dowry demand, as same was part of the telephonic
conversation between deceased and her mother, which took
place on 22.01.2016. So, considering the provisions contained
under Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court is
required to presume that the applicants have caused dowry
death. There is no dispute that the death of complainant’s
daughter is otherwise then in normal circumstances
and occurred within 7 years of her marriage span. No doubt,

Page 3 of 5

HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Sat Jul 15 00:15:22 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/10162/2017 ORDER

presumption under Section 113(B) of the Indian
Evidence Act is rebuttable yet the Court hearing the
bail application of the applicant – accused, cannot hold like a
trial Court that such presumption has been rebutted on the
basis of affidavits and documentary evidence placed and relied
upon by learned advocate Mr.A.J. Yagnik for the applicants.

6. It requires to be noted here that the applicants procured
affidavits of six prosecution witnesses, as recorded
hereinabove, with a view to show that the statements
recorded by the concerned Investigation Officer on 25.01.2017
are not accurate and completely untrue. Such attempt on the
part of the applicants is nothing but, it amounts to tamper with
the prosecution witnesses or winning them before the trial
commences. If the applicants can procure such affidavits
inside the jail, then, in Court’s opinion, possibility cannot be
ruled out that the applicants would also tamper with other
prosecution witnesses/evidences. At this stage, learned
advocate Mr.A.J. Yagnik contended that affidavits of six
prosecution witnesses were placed on record as this Court has
permitted the applicants vide order dated 07.07.2017. It
requires to be noted that on 23.06.2017, learned advocate
Mr.A.J. Yagnik for the applicants sought time to produce
affidavits of some of the prosecution witnesses, which, upon
request made on behalf of learned advocate Mr.A.J. Yagnik,
were permitted to be produced in these proceedings while
considering the bail application. It is stated at bar by learned
advocate Mr.A.J. Yagnik for the applicants that such affidavits
procured by the applicants were obtained at the instance of his
office and, therefore, the applicants may not suffer and,
therefore, also, he may be permitted to withdraw said

READ  Mumtaz vs State Gnct Of Delhi & Anr. on 7 May, 2014

Page 4 of 5

HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Sat Jul 15 00:15:22 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/10162/2017 ORDER

affidavits of the prosecution witnesses, procured at his
instance. In fact, in considered opinion of this Court, the Court
is not required to go into such aspect that at whose instance,
affidavits of the prosecution witnesses are procured but, it
remains a matter of fact that an attempt has been made to
tamper with the prosecution witnesses in a serious offence, as
alleged against the applicants. Therefore, without taking this
issue any further, the Court is not inclined to entertain present
bail applications preferred by the applicants on merits and also
on conduct of the applicants.

7. In view of the above, present applications are hereby
rejected. Rule is discharged.

(S.H.VORA, J.)
Hitesh

Page 5 of 5

HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Sat Jul 15 00:15:22 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *