Delhi High Court
Neelam vs State on 1 August, 2011
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 444/2011
Date of Decision : 01.08.2011
NEELAM ...... Petitioner
Through: None
Versus
STATE
....Respondent
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
V.K. SHALI, J. (oral)
1. This is an application filed by the petitioner for grant of
regular bail in respect of FIR No. 562/2008 under Section
363/365/376/120B/34 IPC registered by P.S. Sultan Puri,
Delhi. The present bail application which has been filed
through jail was argued by the Legal Aid Counsel. It has
Bail Appl. 444/2011 Page 1 of 4
been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the present petitioner is in judicial custody since
11.09.2008 and that she has been falsely implicated in
the case. It has also been stated that the mother-in-law
of the accused is severely ill and she is on the death bed.
She is stated to be undergoing treatment at DDU
Hospital. It has also been stated that the
petitioner/accused has two minor children who are also
with her in judicial custody. The petitioner/accused is
not stated to be involved in any other case, and
therefore, it is prayed that she may be extended the
benefit of bail.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
have also perused the status report.
3. It has been stated in the status report that the
averments made by the petitioner in the application that
her mother-in-law is severely ill and on the death bed are
not correct. The fact that she is getting treatment from
DDU Hospital, is also not correct. It has been stated by
Bail Appl. 444/2011 Page 2 of 4
the SHO P.S. Sultanpuri, Delhi that inquires have
revealed that the mother -in-law of the petitioner is an
old lady and is suffering from various old age ailments
but she is not suffering from any serious disease which
warrants her hospitalization.
4. As far as the false implication of the petitioner is
concerned, I have gone through the statement of the
prosecutrix and this averment also does not seem to be
supported by the evidence which has come on record till
date. I do not intend to deal with this aspect of the
matter in detail as it will impact the trial. The fact that
the petitioner is having two minor children along with her
in the judicial custody certainly evokes some sympathy
for the petitioner and especially for the children.
However, keeping in view the severity of charges against
her that she conspired with her husband in kidnapping
the prosecutrix and in the commission of offence of rape,
it dissuades to extend the grant of bail. However, having
regard to the facts of the case, the learned Sessions
Bail Appl. 444/2011 Page 3 of 4
Judge shall make a sincere endeavor to conclude the trial
as expeditiously as possible. Bail application is
dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
August 01, 2011
KP
