Mumbai, February 21, 2024: A Mumbai sessions court has granted bail to a 25-year-old man accused in a dowry-related death case. The accused, Arunkumar Maurya, was arrested in connection with the death of his wife, who allegedly took her own life. The case, registered under Crime No. 721 of 2023 at Dharavi Police Station, involved serious charges, including Sections 498-A (cruelty by husband or relatives), 304-B (dowry death), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Case Background

According to the prosecution, the accused and the deceased were married on December 10, 2020. Initially, the couple lived with the husband’s family, but later moved to Mumbai. The victim’s family alleged that she was subjected to constant harassment and physical abuse over dowry demands. They claimed she had repeatedly informed them about the mistreatment by her husband, his parents, and an uncle.

On March 3, 2021, the victim’s mother received a phone call informing her that her daughter had died at Sion Hospital, Mumbai. The mother notified her other daughter, Anjali, who resided in Pune. The family then transported the deceased’s body back to Uttar Pradesh for last rites. However, an FIR was not lodged until September 25, 2023, more than two years after the incident.

Defense Argument

Advocate Rakesh Jadhav, representing the accused, argued that there was no evidence of dowry demands or physical abuse. He emphasized that the accused had no prior criminal record and had been cooperating with the investigation. He also pointed out that the mobile phone of the deceased and a black odhani (scarf), which she allegedly used to hang herself, had already been seized by the police. He asserted that his client was being falsely implicated and requested bail on the grounds that further incarceration would serve no purpose.

Prosecution’s Stand

Opposing the bail plea, Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Rajlaxmi Bhandari, assisted by Mrs. Meera Choudhari-Bhosale, argued that the case was serious in nature. She pointed out that key witness statements had yet to be recorded and that the Call Detail Records (CDR) of the accused were still to be obtained. She also highlighted that medical reports supported the allegations of torture and abuse. The prosecution contended that granting bail at this stage could result in the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

After hearing both sides, Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gauri Kawdikar noted that the accused’s parents and uncle had already been granted anticipatory bail in December 2023. The court also considered the fact that the victim’s mobile phone and the alleged hanging scarf had been seized, and that the accused had no prior criminal history.

The judge ruled that there was no necessity to keep the accused in custody while imposing stringent conditions to ensure his presence during the trial. The court emphasized that the accused was not a permanent resident of Mumbai and directed him to report to the Dharavi Police Station every three months as a precautionary measure.

Bail Conditions

The court granted bail to the accused on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount, subject to the following conditions:

1. The accused must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
2. He must report to the Dharavi Police Station on the first Sunday of every three months between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM until the trial concludes.
3. He must not commit any offenses while on bail.
4. He cannot leave India without the court’s permission.
5. He must furnish his permanent and temporary addresses along with his contact details to the police.
6. He is prohibited from contacting the complainant or her family directly or indirectly.
7. He cannot change his residential address without prior notification to the Investigation Officer and the concerned court.

The court warned that any violation of these conditions could lead to the cancellation of bail. The accused was instructed to complete the formalities before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court.

Conclusion

This bail order highlights the judiciary’s attempt to balance the accused’s right to liberty with the need to ensure justice for the victim. While the prosecution continues its investigation, the court’s decision to impose strict conditions aims to prevent any possible obstruction in the case. The trial proceedings will determine the final outcome of this serious matter.

The case remains under active investigation, and further developments are awaited.