Delhi High Court
Rajesh vs State on 11 November, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 02.11.2010
Date of Order: 11th November, 2010
+ Bail Appln. No. 1652/2010
% 11.11.2010
Rajesh ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Chowdhary with
Mr. J.B. Prakash, Advocates
versus
State ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
+ Bail Appln. No. 1501/2010
% 11.11.2010
Lajjawati ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Chowdhary with
Mr. J.B.Prakash, Advocates
versus
State ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
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. By this order, I shall dispose of above two applications for anticipatory
bail/bail made by the applicant/accused person. The applicant/accused have
been named by parents of the deceased in offence under Sections 304-B, 498-
A IPC. The deceased had committed suicide at her in-laws house and after her
suicide on the basis of statement of her parents, an FIR under Section 304-B
and 498-A IPC was registered against in-laws of the deceased.
2. A perusal of the statements made by the father, mother and brother of
the deceased to I.O as well as to the SDM would show that all of them
consistently stated that the in-laws were not allowing their daughter/sister to
come to their house or to telephone them and they had not no contact with
the daughter. However, mother of the deceased made statement that about
one and half month prior to the incident while her daughter was going to
dispensary to take medicine for her son, aged about nine and a half months,
she had met her on the way and she complained to her that her mother-in-
law, her husband and husband's brother used to harass her and threaten her
not to meet her parents neither her parents should come to meet her and if
they had come, they would be killed and they used to taunt her for bringing
less dowry. She alleged a second chance meeting about 4-5 days before the
incident and repeated the same complaint having been made by her daughter.
The brother of the deceased in his statement has stated that his sister had
met him only once after marriage i.e. on the day of Raksha Bandhan and on
that day, her husband had come and quarreled with him and taken her back
without tying Rakhi. Her in-laws did not allow her to make a phone call and
were not allowing her to come to their house. It was only after two and a half
year that news was received that his sister used to be under pressure and was
being harassed. The statement of father shows that he had gone to her
daughter's house on one occasion before Raksha Bandhan with 20 kg of
'Jalebi' and on another occasion at the time of some "Jagaran" with 'Mathees'
but mother-in-law of the deceased threw away these things and shown
dissatisfaction. Her daughter was not allowed to make a telephone call nor
allowed to meet them. No message was received to him from his daughter. All
these three witnesses despite saying that the deceased was neither talking to
them nor meeting them made allegation of dowry demand by the in-laws,
without disclosing the source as to who told them about the dowry demand
by the in-laws. The chance meeting as described by the mother of the
deceased seems to have been introduced, because these chance meeting
have been shown just before the death. It is a fact that houses of parents of
the girl and in-laws were not at far off places. While parents were living at F-
662, Mangol Puri, Delhi, the in-laws were living at E-594, Mangol Puri, Delhi.
Thus, the two families were living at two adjoining blocks of Mangol Puri. It is
submitted by counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the
husband and the wife was a love marriage and parents of the girl were not
happy with the marriage and that was the reason that the girl was not being
allowed by the parents themselves to meet them.
3. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that there was no
evidence to show that it was love marriage. It was an arranged marriage as
per the statement of the father of the deceased at the time of marriage also
dowry requests were given.
4. The parents of the deceased were living in the adjoining block. Even if
their daughter was not being allowed to meet them or telephone them, they
could easily have gone to the house of the deceased any number of times and
had there been incidents of cruelty or complaints of dowry demand, they
would have made a complaint or lodged the report. It is also undisputed that
the deceased was having a child of around nine month's age. It is not even
stated that at the time of birth of the child, the parents of the girl visited her
or called her to their home or there was any mis-treatment at the time of
birth of the child before that. I, therefore, consider that the allegations made
by the parents of the girl against in-laws regarding the harassment due to
dowry etc. as learnt from the deceased on these two alleged chance meeting
cannot be believed on face value, unless they are tested during the evidence
and I consider it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant who
is jeth of the deceased and bail to other applicant, who is mother-in-law of the
deceased.
5. The applications are allowed. It is directed that in case the applicant
Rajesh is arrested, he be released on executing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-
with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of SHO/Arresting Officer
concerned. The applicant Lajjawati, who is in judicial custody be released by
trial Court on her executing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of
the like amount.
November 11, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
rs
