Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh HC Denies Bail To Army Personnel Accused Of Unnatural Death Of Wife Within 6 Months Of Marriage
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has denied bail to an Army Personnel who was accused of the unnatural death of his wife within 6 months of their marriage.
The Court dismissed the bail petition under Section 437 of the CrPC filed by the Appellant, who was serving as a ‘Major’ with the Indian Army, arising from an FIR registered under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 109 of the IPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed, “It is significant to mention here that the said contention of the petitioner can neither be looked into by this Court at this stage nor can the said contention of innocence of the petitioner can be taken to be a gospel truth, in presence of the evidence collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation whereupon the completion of the investigation the petitioner herein has been found to have committed the alleged offences, so much so, even the trial court is stated to have framed charges against the petitioner and has set down the case for trial.”
Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi represented the Appellant, while GA Bhanu Jasrotia appeared for the Respondent.
The wife of the Appellant had allegedly died an unnatural death six months after their marriage. A personal tab of the deceased was seized during the investigation which contained a written suicide note, which revealed that the death of the deceased was a case of dowry death and after taking cognizance of the aforesaid, the FIR came to be registered against the Appellant.
The Trial Court dismissed the bail application filed by the Appellant.
The High Court noted, “It is significant to mention here that the petitioner herein, as has been noticed in the preceding paras has based the foundation of the case set up in the instant petition for grant of bail primarily and fundamentally on the premise that he is innocent and has not committed any offence, much less those alleged in the instant case against him, as also that he is a law abiding citizen and holding a responsible rank in the Indian Army.”
The Bench referred to the decision by the Apex Court in State of UP v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005), wherein it was held, “While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused.”
The Court pointed out that the Court could not look into the contention of the Appellant that he was innocent because he was an Army officer nor could the said contention of innocence of the Appellant be taken to be “a gospel truth.”
Consequently, the Court remarked, “Furthermore, having regard to the gravity of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, inasmuch as the position of the petitioner being an army personnel/officer where there is every likelihood that the petitioner would intimidate the witnesses acquainted with the case directly or indirectly so as to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the trial court or may even tamper with the prosecution evidence, it is deemed appropriate and desirable to decline the concession of bail to the petitioner herein.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Deepak Tetarwal v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi; Advocate Mohit Vaid
Respondent: GA Bhanu Jasrotia; Advocate Gagan Oswal
