Santosh Kumari vs The State
2010 Latest Caselaw 3289 Del

     *           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                     Date of Reserve: 5th July, 2010

                                 Date of Order: July 15, 2010
                                 + Bail Appln. 1015/ 2010
%                                                                           15.07.2010
         Santosh Kumari                                            ...Petitioner
         Through: J.S. Kushwaha, Advocate

         Versus

         The State                                                 ...Respondent
         Through: Mr.R.N. Vats, APP for the State


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


         ORDER

1. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C has been made by the petitioner

for grant of bail. The accused/applicant is facing trial under Section 302/307/452 read

with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The allegations against the accused/petitioner are

that on 20th July, 2007, the accused along with other co-accused persons came to the

house of complainant Shanti Devi who was sitting at the door of her house with her sister

Kamla Devi (since deceased). This gang of accused persons was having kerosene oil in

a bottle, danda on which a cloth was wrapped. As per allegations this accused along with

other accused persons caught hold of the deceased Kamla Devi and kerosene oil was

poured on her and she was set on fire. When daughters of deceased tried to save them,

they were threatened that they would also be burnt if they would not come forward. In the

meantime, crowd gathered there and the accused persons ran away from the spot. Of

the two persons who were set on fire, one died and the other is complainant who had

Bail Appln.1015/2010 Santosh Kumari v State Page 1 Of 2 also received burn injuries. The testimony of eye witness has been recorded and the

eye witness has supported the prosecution case and shown the involvement of the

accused in murder of deceased and attempt to murder to complainant. The testimony of

other witnesses is going on before the trial court. Looking at the seriousness of the

offence and gruesome manner in which the two women were sought to be burnt and one

of them actually burnt and died, I consider that the petitioner/accused is not entitled for

bail. The application for bail is hereby dismissed.

July 15, 2010                                             SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




Bail Appln.1015/2010   Santosh Kumari v State                             Page 2 Of 2