Sunil Kumar Bansal vs The State (Nct Of Delhi)
2005 Latest Caselaw 506 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

FIR No. 856/2004

U/s 498-A/304-B IPC

P.S. Saraswati Vihar

1. The petitioner is an accused of having committed offences under Section 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased Neelam. The petitioner and the deceased Neelam were married on 20th April, 1998 and thereafter, they had two children. On 25.9.2004 Neelam died an unnatural death in the sense that she committed suicide and the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of hanging. The death occurred in the matrimonial home and on that very day, i.e. On 25.9.2004, the statements of the father, mother and brother of the deceased were recorded by the police officer. In these statements which are all of a similar nature, it was categorically stated that the deceased was living happily in her matrimonial home since her marriage till date and no dispute took place and there was no quarrel with regard to any issue. It was further stated that the deceased fell ill about two or three months back and was suffering from giddiness. It was categorically stated that nobody is being blamed for the death of the deceased. On the very next day, the father of the deceased made a different statement, a copy of which is placed on record at pages 24 to 26. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these statements contain certain allegations with regard to demand for dowry and harassment and beating at the hands of the in-laws. He further submitted that the allegations contained in this statement pertain to incidents which took place between 1998 to 2000 around the time when the two children were born. Thereafter, although, there is a general statement with regard to the harassment and beating continuing, there is no specific allegation giving any particular date, month or year as to when such treatment wasted out to the deceased. He further submitted that the allegations are with respect to all the in-laws and no specific allegation has been made against any particular person. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the ingredient of Section 304B have not been fulfillled in this case even if the statement of 26.9.2004 is taken at face value in its entirety. According to him, for an offence to be made out under Section 304B not only must there have been harassment and cruelty but the same must have been for or in connection with the demand for dowry and that, too, soon before the death. In this case, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no allegation whatsoever of any demand for dowry on or about 24.9.2004 and 25.9.2004 when the deceased is said to have been made a call to her parents and when the deceased actually committed suicide, respectively. According to him, the entire period from the year 2000 to 2004 is a blank.

2. The learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail by stating that there are allegations of beating, harassment and demand for dowry right from about eight months of the marriage when the first son was born, i.e. in the year 1999. He further submitted that immediately prior to the death of the deceased, the deceased is said to have made a call to her parents stating that she was being beaten for many days and had not been given anything to eat or drink. In this regard, when a pointed question was put to the counsel for the State as to the nature of external injuries found on the body of the deceased at the time of postmortem, it was submitted that apart from the ligature marks on the neck of the deceased which were connected with the handing of the deceased, there was no other external injuries found on the body of the deceased. It does appear that the allegation of beating is not corroborated by the postmortem report. Furthermore, on going through the statement of the deceased's father on 26.9.2004 there does not seem to be any demand for dowry soon before the death of the deceased. Accordingly, prima facie, it appears that the proximate and live link that is necessary for establishing a case under Section 304B of the IPC is not mad out.

3. Accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to bail. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/concerned Magistrate.

4. It goes without saying that all observations made in this order are only for the purpose of grant of bail and are not to be considered at the time of trial of the case.

dusty.