Meena vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 5055 Del

                * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Date of Reserve: October 27, 2010
                                                 Date of Order: 2nd November, 2010
+ Bail Appliction No. 1451/2010
%                                                                     02.11.2010

        Meena                                              ... Petitioner
                                 Through: Mr. Amit Sahni, Advocate &
                                 Mr. Sanjeet Singh Arya, Advocate

                Versus


        State                                             ... Respondent
                                 Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State
                                 With Mr. Ved Prakash, Si


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of l7ocal 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

This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been made for

anticipatory bail on behalf of the sister-in-law (jethani) of the deceased, who

committed suicide within four months of the marriage. Perusal of final

report/charge-sheet filed against the accused persons would show that the

allegations made by father of the deceased are that after two months of

marriage, husband of deceased started beating her and she used to call her

mother to tell about the beatings given by her husband. Deceased visited her

parents' house as she was pregnant in May, 2010. It is alleged that at the

time deceased who was pregnant went to her parents' house, father-in-law

Suresh Kumar told her when she gives birth to a male child, her parents

would have to give a car. Deceased came back to her matrimonial home after

her stay of 10-12 days at her parents' house. After she moved to her

matrimonial home, she allegedly committed suicide. Her father made a

statement to the police that during her stay Geeta (deceased) had told him

that her jeth and jethani used to quarrel with her and her husband and stated

that they would not let her settle. There are no other allegation against jeth

and jethani except the allegation that they used to quarrel with her (deceased)

and her husband. It is obvious from the statement that this quarrel was not for

dowry demand. The reason for quarrel is not given but in any case even if

this statement is believed true, it cannot be considered that the applicant was

prima facie involved in offence under Section 304B IPC.

2. I, therefore, consider that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory

bail. The application is allowed. It is directed that in case of arrest of

applicant, the applicant shall be released on bail on her executing personal

bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of

the IO/SHO concerned. The applicant, however, shall join investigation as and

when called, by serving a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C.

November 02, 2010                            SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn