Delhi High Court
Rakesh Sharma vs State Of Delhi on 14 July, 2008
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Bail Application No.360/2008
% Date of Decision: 14.07.2008
Rakesh Sharma ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.B. Andely, Sr. Advocate with
M.L. Yadav, Advocate.
Versus
State of Delhi .... Respondent
Through: Mr.Amit Sharma, APP for the State.
CORAM :-
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
This is a petition for grant of bail by the husband of the deceased,
Savita, who allegedly died of hanging on 1st October, 2006.
FIR No.917 of 2006 was registered at Police Station Dabri on the
complaint of Sanjay Sharma, brother of the deceased, Savita. He has
contended that her sister was married to Rakesh Sharma, the
petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner, his father, mother
and sister used to harass the deceased for dowry though the family of
deceased Savita had given considerable dowry as per their capacity.
Demand of Rs.1.00 lakh for the construction of house was made, out of
which Rs.50,000/- was given.
The plea of the petitioner is that he is innocent and has been
falsely implicated and there is no legal evidence against him. The
damand of Rs.1.00 lakh for construction of house does not construe the
demand for dowry and there is no clear evidence to justify that the
deceased had been killed by the petitioner or any of his family member.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has very emphatically
contended that the father and mother of the petitioner, who are co-
accused, have already been released on bail by order dated 7th
February, 2007 and 10th July, 2007. It is asserted that since the
allegation against the petitioner are also same, he is also entitled to be
released on bail. Release of petitioner on bail is also sought on the
ground that the deceased has left infant children aged six years, four
years and two years who require proper care and attention. It is also
contended that the challan has already been filed and the case is fixed
for prosecution evidence and no custodial interrogation of the petitioner
is required.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail on the
ground that specific roll has been attributed to the petitioner as he had
allegedly beaten the deceased at 4o clock on the date of incident which
was intimated by the deceased to her brother. She had also told him
that the petitioner would kill her and he should take her away from
there. Thereafter at 11o clock on the same date a phone call was made
by the petitioner to the brother of the deceased that her sister has
expired.
The first information report reveals the allegation of the brother of
the deceased that her sister has been killed by the petitioner and that
he is giving his statement in full senses. Perusal of Charge Sheet also
reveal similar allegations.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that similar
charges have been framed against the other co-accused as against the
petitioner and since other co-accused were released on Bail prior to
framing of charges, the petitioner should also be enlarged on bail.
On perusal of the trial Court record and the charge sheet, it is
apparent that the allegation made against the petitioner is that he killed
deceased Savita whereas no such specific allegation has been made
against other co-accused. Merely because the father and mother of the
petitioner have been released on bail despite the allegation of
harassment for dowry, the petitioner cannot be released on bail on this
ground alone.
I have also perused the postmortem report indicating that the
eyes of deceased were open, however, her mouth was closed and she
had blue mark near left eye and on both hands up to wrist and on both
feet up to ankle. The FIR reveals that the deceased had allegedly called
her brother in the morning at 4o clock and had allegedly stated that she
was beaten by the petitioner and she should be taken away from there
otherwise she would be killed. I have also perused the photographs of
the deceased body after post mortem.
The children of the deceased are already with the grand parents
who have already been released on the bail.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances, nature of
accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, in my
opinion, it is not a fit case to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.
In the circumstances, the bail application of the petitioner is dismissed.
July 14, 2008 ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'
