Court In Kashmir’s Awantipora Denies Bail To Groom Accused Of Skipping Own Wedding Reception For Not Giving Dowry

A trial Court in Jammu and Kashmir has recently rejected the bail plea of a man arrested after he skipped his wedding reception because the bride’s family could not fulfil his demand for dowry. The accused was booked under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

This reception was set to be held in Kashmir’s Awantipora last month, four years after their nikah. The bride alleged that the accused convinced her to have a physical relationship with him during this period, under the notion that the remaining rituals would also be completed. However, on the day of the wedding reception (or, departure ceremony), the bride’s family was told that the groom would not attend the event unless he was given a car and 20 lakhs cash as dowry. When his demands were not met, the accused and his family did not show up at his reception, which led to his bride filing a complaint at the Awantipora police station. In the same month, the groom and his father were arrested by the Kashmir police.

During the hearing, the State objected to the bail application of the accused, saying that the offence had “shaken the very ethos of our society” and “bruised our cherished social fabric”. The public prosecutor also called for this to not be viewed as any routine case since the acts of the accused were “horrible, abhorrent, and despicable”, warranting differential treatment from the court. Apart from this, the long-lasting effect on the psyche and reputation of the victim and her family was also highlighted by the prosecution, in an effort to dissuade the court from granting bail. The bride also filed a petition protesting against the bail application filed by the accused, pointing out, among other things, that by having sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage, the groom ought also to be prosecuted under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code.

On the other hand, the two accused argued that they had been arrested on the basis of a false complaint. Their continued detention, it was contended, was not only unreasonable and unjustifiable, but would also detrimentally impact their health and character.

Despite the fervent appeals by the groom and his father to be released on bail, the local court dismissed their application. While denying bail, the court stressed that the case has the potential of tearing the social fabric into pieces. Awantipora Additional Special Mobile Magistrate Shahber Ayaz made the following observation in his order –

“The alleged incident has the potential of tearing the social fabric into pieces and stay as a dagger, thrust deep, into the institution of morality. I do not see an iota of cause which can tilt my opinion towards the arrest of the accused being unnecessary specifically in a situation where there is a hue and cry in the society and serious chances of law and order problem exist.”

In response to a contention that the case’s merits ought not to be delved into at the stage of bail, the magistrate categorically said that several aspects would have to be considered before granting bail to an accused, drawing support from a catena of judgments by the Supreme Court and high courts. These include the existence of prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; its nature and gravity, the punishment’s severity in the event of conviction; the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released; their character, behaviour, means, position and standing; the likelihood of a repeat offence; the existence of a reasonable apprehension of witness tampering; and the danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

The magistrate further observed that although the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive, an accused cannot be granted bail as a matter of routine in all cases, especially in those cases where public interest and public property are involved. The liberty of an individual, he wrote, needs to be balanced against societal interest. He added that this was a fit case for invoking the exception to the general rule of granting bail, in view of the facts and circumstances –

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for invoking the exception to the general rule. The personal liberty guaranteed to the accused is undoubtedly a valuable right of the accused person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution but the same can be refused in accordance with the procedure established under law. The right of liberty of an individual needs to be balanced against the interests of the whole society and the interest of society is to be preferred over the individual interest. Thus, it would be improper and premature to admit the accused to bail at this stage in view of the nature of the alleged offences. This court is not inclined to grant the concession of bail at this stage. Hence the application is rejected.”

Advocates Sheikh Mudasir, Irfan Javid, and Adil Nabi appeared for the bail applicants. Additional Public Prosecutor Romisa Rasool appeared for the Jammu and Kashmir government. Advocates Zahid Hussain Dar and Syed Irfan Muhammad appeared for the complainant.

Case Details

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir v. Fayaz Ahmad Dar & Ors. | CNR No. JKPL080003332023