* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPN. No. 1168/2011
Date of Decision : 21.05.2012
SANJEEV DHIR ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr.
Adv. with Mr.Sandeep
Tyagi, Adv.
Versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
Counsel for respondent
no.2(name not given)
WITH
BAIL APPN. NO.999/2011
MADHURI ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr.
Adv. with Mr.Sandeep
Tyagi, Adv.
Versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
Counsel for respondent
no.2(name not given)
WITH
BAIL APPN. NO.1819/2011
SATYABIR SINGH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Counsel (name not
given)
Versus
Bail Appn. 1168/2011, 999/2011 & 1819/2011 Page 1 of 9
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. These are three applications - two filed by Sanjeev Dhir and his wife, Madhuri who are brother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the deceased for anticipatory bail and the third application has been filed by Satyabir Singh, the Chachiya Sasur of the deceased for grant of regular bail.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on the night of 22-23.3.2011, a PCR call regarding hanging of a woman was received, which was marked to SI Kapil Khokhar for inquiry. He visited the site and found one lady hanging from the ceiling fan. The spot was inspected by the Crime Team and the photographs were taken. Since the incident had taken place in less than seven years, from the date of the marriage, the SDM was informed who conducted an inquest and after completing the formalities, the dead body was sent to GTB Mortuary for postmortem. The statement of the father of the deceased, named, Anju, wife of Arvind, resident of 363, Gali No.6, Durga Puri, Delhi was recorded by the SDM who alleged that Shaktu Mal, father-in-law, Ramanandi, mother-in-law, Bail Appn. 1168/2011, 999/2011 & 1819/2011 Page 2 of 9 Sanjeev Dhir, brother-in-law, Madhuri, sister-in-law and Satyabir (Chachiya Sasur) were responsible for the death of Anju, as they used to subject her to mental as well as physical torture with a view to extract dowry by way of cash and kind.
3. It is the case of the Prosecution that immediately before her death, the deceased had sent an SMS to her brother that her husband and his entire family were responsible for her death. On the basis of this allegation, an FIR No.58/2011 under Sections 304-B/498-A/406/34IPC was registered by PS:M.S. Park on 24.3.2011 and after the investigation, a Chargesheet was filed against the husband, the parents-in-law and Satyabir Singh (Chachia Sasur) who are facing trial. I have been informed that supplementary Chargesheet against Sanjeev Dhir and Madhuri has not been filed, as they could not be arrested and custodially interrogated. It is further the case of the Prosecution that the Supplementary Statement of the brother of the deceased records specific allegations against both Sanjeev Dhir and Madhuri for causing the death of the deceased.
4. Mr. Ramesh Gupta, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to Sanjeev Dhir and Madhuri on the ground Bail Appn. 1168/2011, 999/2011 & 1819/2011 Page 3 of 9 that there has been no specific role attributed to either of the two petitioners and the allegations against them have been leveled by the brother of the deceased only in the Supplementary Statement. It has also been stated that both these petitioners, who happen to be husband and wife, though related to the husband of the deceased, were living separately in the same building and, therefore, they could not be denied the benefit of anticipatory bail, as they had absolutely no role in the commission of the offence. It has also been pointed out that so far as Madhuri is concerned, she got married to Sanjeev Dhir after the deceased had got married to her brother-in-law. Therefore, there has been hardly any occasion for her to make the demands of dowry or subject the deceased to cruelty. In order to substantiate the claim of living separately, the learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon certain documents in order to show that both the petitioners were having a separate kitchen. It has also been contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the present petitioners had joined the investigation and, therefore, there is absolutely no reason to deny them the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Bail Appn. 1168/2011, 999/2011 & 1819/2011 Page 4 of 9
5. The learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Kans Raj -vs- State of Punjab & Ors., 2000 II AD (Cr.) SC 481, wherein it has been observed that in all such criminal disputes, there is a tendency to enrope every relation of the husband. On the strength of this judgment, the learned Senior Counsel has contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated by the parents of the deceased only out of enmity because they have suffered the serious loss of their daughter.
6. So far as Satyabir Singh (Chachia Sasur) is concerned, it has been contended by his learned counsel that the petitioner was living somewhere in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and he had absolutely no role to play. Moreover, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that Satyabir Singh (Chachia Sasur) had made some demand, it would not have benefitted him in any manner. It has been contended that Satyabir Singh (Chachiya Sasur) has already been in custody for more than a year and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him incarcerated when the charges against him have already been framed.
7. The learned Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the two petitioners and Bail Appn. 1168/2011, 999/2011 & 1819/2011 Page 5 of 9 regular bail to Satyabir Singh (Chachiya Sasur) on the ground that the allegations against all three of them are very serious. So far as the setting up of a separate kitchen and the living room, as alleged by Madhuri and Sanjeev are concerned, the learned APP has drawn the attention of the Court to the observations made by the learned Trial Court which had observed that it is after the incident that the petitioners had applied for the grant of Ration Card and thus it has been sought to be urged that the evidence was sought to be created to show that they were living separately. The learned APP has also taken the Court through the Supplementary Statement of the brother of the deceased and has urged that specific roles have been attributed to both Madhuri and Sanjeev because they were living separately does not mean that they could not have subjected the deceased to demand of dowry and cruelty. It has been contended by the learned APP that the Prosecution has already noted in the Chargesheet that supplementary Chargesheet against Madhuri and Sanjeev shall be filed only after subjecting them to custodial interrogation. It is therefore, submitted that they may not be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Bail Appn. 1168/2011, 999/2011 & 1819/2011 Page 6 of 9
8. The learned APP has also drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in State Rep. by the C.B.I. - vs- Anil Sharma, AIR 1997 SC 3806 and urged that the scope of interrogation varies in case the accused is having anticipatory bail order in his pocket and in case where no such protection is granted. Therefore, it was urged that the protection, which has been granted to the petitioners, may be withdrawn so that the petitioners are taken into custody and subjected to interrogation to arrive at the truth.
9. So far as Satyabir (Chachia Sasur) is concerned, it has been contended by the learned counsel that the charges against the accused persons have already been converted from 304-B IPC to 302 IPC and the case has already been fixed for recording of statement of witnesses in the immediate future and in case Satyabir Singh (Chachiya Sasur) is granted the bail, he is likely to influence the witnesses, which may impact the case of the Prosecution. Therefore, it has been contended that the application of Satyabir Singh (Chachiya Sasur) may not be allowed at this stage.
10. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records as well as the Police file. Admittedly, the allegations Bail Appn. 1168/2011, 999/2011 & 1819/2011 Page 7 of 9 against all the petitioners are very serious in nature, inasmuch as the deceased, a young lady has lost her life in less than three years from the date of her marriage. So far as Satyabir Singh (Chachiya Sasur) is concerned, the charges under Section 304-B IPC have already been converted to Section 302 IPC and the case is already fixed for recording of statements of other relations of the deceased. Therefore, releasing the petitioner, Satyabir Singh (Chachiya Sasur) at this stage would only give him an opportunity to influence the witnesses, which cannot be permitted to be done. Therefore, the application of Satyabir Singh (Chachiya Sasur), at this stage, is rejected, as being without any merit.
11. So far as Sanjeev and Madhuri are concerned, they are admittedly living in the same building, though they are claiming that they were living separately in a different floor with a different kitchen. This is totally immaterial, as the fact remains that they were living in the same building and the brother of the deceased had made specific allegations against both of them, therefore, these allegations need to be tested by subjecting both the petitioners to custodial interrogation, as an innocent young lady had lost her life in less than three years from the date of her marriage. Merely because the Bail Appn. 1168/2011, 999/2011 & 1819/2011 Page 8 of 9 petitioners were having the apprehension of their arrest and they had joined the investigation, this is not a good enough reason for them to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
12. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise the discretion of anticipatory bail in favour of Madhuri and Sanjeev and regular bail to Satyabir Singh (Chachiya Sasur). Accordingly, their respective applications for the grant of anticipatory and regular bail are rejected.
V.K. SHALI, J.
May 21, 2012 tp Bail Appn. 1168/2011, 999/2011 & 1819/2011 Page 9 of 9