* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1865/2011
Date of Decision : 22.3.2012
RAMAYAN MEHTO ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.S. Chowdhary, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
WITH
BAIL APPLN. 141/2012
PRADEEP KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.S. Chowdhary, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
WITH
BAIL APPLN. 142/2012
PUSHPA @HEMANTI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.S. Chowdhary, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. These are three connected anticipatory bail applications in respect of FIR No.345/2011 registered by PS:Burari, Delhi under Section Bail Appl. 1865/11, 141-42/12 Page 1 of 7 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The application bearing No.1865/2011 has been filed by Mr. Ramayan Mehto, the father-in-law; application bearing No.141/2012 has been filed by Mr. Pradeep Kumar, the brother-in- law and the application bearing No.142/2012 has been filed by Ms. Pushpa @ Hemanti, the sister-in-law of the deceased.
3. The case of the prosecution against the petitioners is that Anju, aged about 24 years, got married to one Manoj Kumar, r/o House No.65, Gali No.4, Baba Colony, Burari, Delhi on 13.12.2009. At the time of marriage, the father-in-law, Ramayan Mehto and the brother-in-law, Pradeep Kumar had allegedly demanded a dowry of Rupees 3,00,000/-, by way of cash, which was given by the parents of the deceased. It has also been stated in the complaint that some jewellery articles and other household goods were given at the time of marriage, but from the date of marriage itself, Anju, the deceased, kept complaining to her mother, as and when she would meet her, that her brother-in-law, Pradeep Kumar, two sisters-in- law, Pushpa and Manorama and the father-in-law, Ramayan Mehto were subjecting her to harassment and cruelty, with a view to demand dowry. It was also alleged in the complaint that on 10.11.2011, the mother of the deceased learnt that Manoj, the husband, wanted the parents of the deceased to give him money for the purchase of a 50 sq. yds. plot of land so that he could live separately along with his wife. On 10.11.2011, at around 5:00 P.M., Bail Appl. 1865/11, 141-42/12 Page 1 of 7 the mother of the deceased received intimation that her daughter had hanged herself. The parents of the deceased came to Delhi from Moradabad, UP and learnt about the alleged suicide committed by their daughter who had hanged herself with the help of a dupatta. The Sub Divisional Magistrate of Civil Lines, Delhi was called by the local Police who had been given the information. He recorded the statement of the mother and put the criminal justice machinery into motion, because of which the FIR in question was registered. Supplementary statements of the mother of the deceased, Phoolwati, the father of the deceased, Lallan Mahto and other persons were also recorded.
4. So far as the husband Manoj is concerned, he is already in custody. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that if one reads the entire FIR, the main thrust of the allegations of the demand of dowry and harassment are leveled against the husband, Manoj who is already in custody. So far as the petitioners are concerned, there are no specific allegations against them for demand of dowry or subjecting the deceased to cruelty which can prima facie show that an offence under Section 304-B of the IPC had been committed by them. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there has to be some proximity of time between the demand of dowry and the date of death of the deceased so as to enable the Court to draw a presumption against the petitioners, while as, in the instant case, no such contingency is available. Bail Appl. 1865/11, 141-42/12 Page 1 of 7
5. The second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors.
-vs- State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 as well as in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre -vs- State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514 has interpreted the law regarding the grant of anticipatory bail very liberally, as it has put very high premium on the individuals liberty. It has been contended that a perusal of these two judgments would show that unless and until it is immensely imperative, an accused should not be arrested. It has been contended that the gravity of the charge and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before he is arrested, as the arrest brings a great deal of ignominy to the arrestee.
6. The learned APP has vehemently opposed the application for the grant of anticipatory bail to all the three accused persons. It has been contended by the learned APP that the death of the deceased had taken place in less than two years from the date of her marriage and, therefore, by virtue of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, this presumption of the death, being a dowry death, can be drawn. It has also been contended that the specific roles have been attributed to the petitioners in the instant case. With regard to Pushpa/sister-in-law, it has been contended by the learned APP that the learned counsel for the defence is contending that Ms. Pushpa is a married woman and living separately along Bail Appl. 1865/11, 141-42/12 Page 1 of 7 with her son, while as, in the order of the Court of Sessions, dated 25.1.2012, this fact has been conceded by the learned counsel representing the petitioners that Ms. Pushpa is deserted by her husband and she is living with her father in the matrimonial home of the deceased. Therefore, it is stated that this is not correct to urge that Ms. Pushpa, being married, was living separately. So far as her role is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the averments where a specific role of having physically abused the deceased has been given. Same is the case with Mr. Pradeep, the brother-in-law. So far as the father-in-law is concerned, it was contended by the learned APP that he was living in a joint family and was subjecting the deceased to the demand of dowry inasmuch as the father-in-law had allegedly asked the deceased to get more dowry from her parents and was using his son for this purpose.
7. The learned APP has also contended that so far as the judgments, which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, they lay down the general principles of the grant of anticipatory bail in different circumstances but it does not lay down that the anticipatory bail is to be given in each and every case, irrespective of the role attributable to an accused in the commission of the offence.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
Bail Appl. 1865/11, 141-42/12 Page 1 of 7
9. The case is still at the threshold of investigation and the allegations against the petitioners are very serious. If one sees the content of the FIR and the supplementary statements, this clearly shows that an innocent and young lady had lost her life in just less than two years of her matrimonial alliance, without any justification. The mother of the deceased has attributed specific role to all the parties and, therefore, it cannot be stated that the petitioners are not prima facie responsible for the commission of the offence. In any case, these roles have to be investigated by the Police.
10. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that in case where there is an unfortunate death of a woman, everybody who is living in a joint family is sought to be enroped. No doubt, such a tendency exists, but it cannot be said that in each and every case, as a matter of course, all the members are sought to be enroped and even if their names are mentioned, the Court is under an obligation to see the role of each and every accused before the denial or the grant of the bail.
11. In the instant case, I have gone through the contents of the FIR as well as the supplementary statements in Court with the help of the learned APP and it can be stated that prima facie there is a definite role and accusation made against all the three petitioners.
12. As regards the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the two cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are Bail Appl. 1865/11, 141-42/12 Page 1 of 7 concerned, it cannot be said that as a matter of law, it has been laid down that the bail be granted in all the cases where the death has taken place in less than seven years of the marriage. On the contrary, it has been specifically observed by the Court that while considering the grant of the anticipatory bail, the Court must look at the accusations and the specific role attributed to such persons. The role attributed to such persons will be seen only on the basis of the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and not only on the basis of the FIR. In the instant case, after the perusal of the statements of the mother of the deceased, the FIR and the other connected documents, I am of the prima facie view that there is a specific role attributed to the petitioners which needs to be investigated by the Courts. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Samunder Singh -vs- State of Rajasthan, AIR 1987 SC 737, has deprecated the practice of grant of bail in cases of dowry deaths.
13. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I am of the considered view that these are not the fit cases where the grant of exercise of discretion of anticipatory bail ought to be extended to the petitioners. Accordingly, all the three petitions are dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J MARCH 22, 2012 tp Bail Appl. 1865/11, 141-42/12 Page 1 of 7