Rajiv Jaiswal And Ors. vs State
1990 Latest Caselaw 338 Del

JUDGMENT

V.B. Bansal, J.

(1) This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for being released in anticipation of their arrest in Fir No. 189/90, Police Station Lahori Gate, Delhi under Sections 498-A/ 304-B read with 34 Indian Penal Code .

(2) Rajiv Jaiswal petitioner no.1 was married to Seema aged about 19 years on 30th November, 1989 and since then she was residing with her husband and in-laws.

(3) Mool Chand petitioner no. 2 and Smt. Santosh (Public Witness 3) are the parents and Sanjiv Jaiswal (Public Witness 4) is the brother, and N.P. Jaiswal (Public Witness 5) is the brother-in-law (sister's husband) of petitioner No.1.

(4) On 13th May, 1990 Smt. Seema died of unnatural death at the house of her in-laws regarding which intimation was sent to the police. Inquest proceeding were conducted by Sdm when her parents and relations did not express any doubt in connection with the death of Smt. Seema.

(5) A complaint dated 15th June, 1990 was made by the father of the deceased to the police making allegation of harassment demand of dowry and torture of his daughter Seema by her husband and other relations. The matter was pursued by him further and ultimately the aforesaid ease has been registered. The matter is still being investigated.

(6) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no demand of dowry at any lime by the petitioners and there are no suspicious circumstances to indicate that the petitioners were in any way responsible to force Smt. Seema to end her life. He has further submitted that there Was an enquiry conducted by Assistant Commissioner of Police who also made a specific report that there was nothing against the petitioner and they were not in any way connected with the death of Smt. Seema. He has, thus submitted that it is only an after-thought on the part of the parents of the deceased that they have decided to harass the petitioners get them falsely implicated in this case. A prayer has, therefore, been made- for releasing the petitioners in anticipation of their arrest who would join the investigation as and when required.

(7) This petition has strongly been opposed by the Standing Counsel for the respondent who .has submitted that admittedly a young girl died of an unnatural death at the house of her in-laws in a period of about 51 months of her marriage and that the investigation is at a very initial stage. It has also been submitted that the release of the petitioners at this stage may create hindrance in the investigation. A prayer has, therefore been made for the dismissal of the application. Reliance has alia been placed on judgment Samundar Singh v. State (Rajasthan) 1987 R.L.R. 433.

(8) I have considered all the facts and circumstances the light of the submission made at the Bar Admittedly there is no compulsion for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. It is, however well settled that each case has to be considered on its own merits. In the instant case inquest proceedings were conducted by Sdm on the day on which Seema died when her parents and other relations had made categorical statement that they bad no suspicion. It is only a month later that complaint was made against the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed, reliance on an affidavit dated 29th May, 1990 signed by the parents of the deceased and attested by a Notary in which there was a mention to the parents of the deceased did not want any action to be taken. Learned counsel for the State has not disputed the fact of A.C.P. having made a report on the complaint of father of the deceased favorable to the accused and not supporting the version of the prosecution.

(9) Considering all these faces I am clearly of the view that it is a fit case where the petitioners should be allowed anticipatory bail.

(10) As a result, I direct that in case of their arrest the petitioners shall be released by the SHO/IO subject to their furnishing personal bond for Rs. 20,000.00 each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the aforesaid officer on the condition that they would join the investigation as and when required.