Bhuri Singh S/O. Late Sh. Gulua And ... vs The State, Nct Of Delhi [Along With ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 2455 Del

JUDGMENT

V.B. Gupta, J.

1. By this common order, I shall dispose of two applications for granting of anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners, since these arise out of common FIR registered in this case.

2. The present case has been registered on the statement of Smt. Phoolwati, mother of deceased Seema, recorded by the SDM. Smt. Phoolwati in her statement has stated that her daughter Seema was married to Ram Kumar on 8th July, 2003. At that time, they had spent beyond their capacity as per their demands. The family members of Ram Kumar took care of her for a while, but later on they started harassing and asking her daughter to bring money from her house as they were unable to meet the expenses of their household. On the occasion of last Raksha Bandhan, they gave an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to their daughter as per demand of their in laws but after six months, again she was sent back to her parental house after giving beating and was asked to bring money. Again they gave a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to their daughter. Thereafter, their son-in-law came and asked for more money and they gave Rs. 1,000/- to him. Thereafter, her in laws asked her to bring her share from her parental property otherwise she would be killed. Lastly, on 29th September, 2007, the father-in-law of the deceased, Ram Kumar, Ram Nath , Shri Niwas and Lokesh killed her daughter and they did not even deem it proper to inform her about death and the information of the death of their daughter was given by the neighbours. On the basis of the above statement, the present case has been registered against the present petitioners.

3. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioners Bhuri Singh is the father-in-law while, other three petitioners are (jeth) brother-in-law, of the deceased Seema. The father-in-law is residing in Rajasthan whereas, all the other three petitioners have been living separately only, general and vague allegations have been made against all the in laws of the family of the deceased and there are no specific allegations of demand of dowry or torture against the petitioners. Under these circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail and in support of his contentions learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited various judgments of this Court as well as those of the Apex Court viz. Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Ors. , Mahender Rani Johar v. State of NCT of Delhi , Satvir Singh And Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2002 SCC (Cri) 48, Inderjit Kaur v. The State 2005 IV AD (Delhi) 532, Ved Prakash Yadav v. State and Promila Malhotra v. State 1995 (2) C.C. Cases 257 (HC).

4. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned Counsel for the State that mother of the deceased has made specific allegations against all the petitioners. The deceased in this case has died within seven years of her marriage. The case is at preliminary stage and the evidence is yet to be concluded and keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the petitioner should not be granted anticipatory bail and in support of his contentions, learned Counsel for the State has cited a decision of Apex Court reported as Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan .

5. The complainant in her statement has specifically named all the petitioners and has made specific allegations with regard to harassment being caused to her daughter and demand of dowry made from her daughter (since deceased).

6. In Bal Chand Jain v. State of M.P. AIR 77 SC 366, the Apex Court has laid down the following proposition with regard to grant of anticipatory bail:

(i) The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only.

(ii) The said power is not unguided or uncanalised but all the limitations imposed in the preceding Section 437 Cr.P.C., are implicit therein and must be read into Section 438 as well.

(iii) In addition to the limitations imposed in Section 437, the petitioner must further make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail.

7. The Apex Court in Samunder Singh (Supra) has laid down that it is not compulsory for the High Court to grant anticipatory bail in a matter regarding unnatural death of daughter-in-law in her father-in-law's house under investigation. It was held that:

The widespread belief that dowry deaths are even now treated with some casualness at all levels seems to be well grounded. The High Court has granted anticipatory bail in such a matter. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not have exercised its jurisdiction to release the accused on anticipatory bail in disregard of the magnitude and seriousness of the matter. The matter regarding the unnatural death of the daughter-in-law at the house of her father-in-law was still under investigation and the appropriate course to adopt was to allow the concerned Magistrate to deal with the same on the basis of the Material before the Court at the point of time of their arrest in case they were arrested. It was neither prudent nor proper for the High Court to have granted anticipatory bail which order was very likely to occasion prejudice by its very nature and timing. We therefore consider it essential to sound a serious note of caution for future. The High Court is under no compulsion to exercise its jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in a matter of this nature.

8. In Kans Raj (Supra) as cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner, it has been laid down that in a case of dowry death, the in laws of the deceased cannot be roped in only on ground of being closed relation of husband of deceased- Overt acts attributed to them should be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

9. This decision of Apex Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case, since that was a case where the trial had concluded. Here, in the present case, the matter is at initial stage and investigation is still going on and prosecution has yet to lead evidence in this case.

10. Further, there is no dispute about the preposition of law laid down in the various decisions cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to the grant for anticipatory bail but as laid down by the Apex Court, it is well settled that the power under Section 438 are to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only.

11. Here, in the present case, all the petitioners have been named in the FIR by the complainant, who is mother of the deceased and she immediately soon after the death of her daughter had made specific allegations against the present petitioners. The allegations made against the present petitioners are serious in nature. Moreover, the deceased has died within seven years of her marriage and the important aspect to be noticed in this case is that as per statement of the complainant, the in laws of her daughter, did not deem it proper to inform her about the death of her daughter and this information about the death of her daughter was given by the neighbours.

12. This fact, as to whether the petitioner Bhuri Singh, who is the father-in-law of the deceased, has been residing in Rajasthan i.e. separate from the deceased, at the time of the death, is a matter of evidence, which is yet to be gone into by the trial court.

13. So, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and the gravity and seriousness and nature of the offence, no ground is made out for granting anticipatory bail to any of the petitioners.

14. Under these circumstances, the present applications for anticipatory bail are hereby dismissed.