Nurjahan @ Nura vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 3884 Del

*              HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 Date of Decision: 10.08.2011

+1. Bail Appl. No.821/2011


SONA                                               ...... Petitioner
                                  Through:   Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Adv.

                                  Versus

STATE                                        ...... Respondent
                                  Through:   Mr.Mukesh Gupta, APP.

2. Bail Appl. No.822/2011


NURJAHAN @ NURA                                    ...... Petitioner
                                  Through:   Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Adv.

                                  Versus

STATE                                        ...... Respondent
                                  Through:   Mr.Mukesh Gupta, APP.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment ?                  No
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?        No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported        No
       in the Digest ?

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. These are two anticipatory bail applications Nos.821/11 &

822/11, filed by the petitioners, Sona/sister-in-law and

Nurjahan/mother-in-law of the deceased Apsra in respect

of FIR No.212/2011, under Section 498A, registered at PS

Sultanpuri, Delhi in which subsequently Section 304B IPC

has been added.

2. The allegations, as recorded in the FIR, are that on

27.12.2006, the daughter-in-law of the complainant,

named, Apsra, resident of Village-Dhaunj, District-

Faridabad, Haryana was married to Zulfikar, son of

Noorjahan and brother of Sona, according to Islamic rites.

It is alleged that they were blessed with two children from

the wedlock. On 22.05.11, the daughter of the complainant

Apsra committed suicide by burning herself. She is alleged

to have been taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, where she

succumbed to injuries. It is alleged, in the application, that

the death of the deceased was on account of having got the

burn injuries because of the stove. She had got her

statement recorded before the Tehsildar, stating that no

one is responsible for the incident. Subsequently, the

deceased had succumbed to injuries.

3. Anticipatory bail applications, filed by the petitioners, were

rejected by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge

vide two separate orders.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners is since the dying declaration recorded by the

Tehsildar exonerates the accused persons and there was

no complaint in writing from the date of marriage till the

time of death, therefore, no presumption against the

petitioners could be drawn that it was a case of dowry

death. Accordingly, anticipatory bail is prayed for.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail

applications and has stated that the dying declaration was

a manipulated one. Apart from this, it has been stated that

investigations have shown that no stove or kerosene oil

was recovered from the kitchen of the deceased. Therefore,

the story set up by the petitioners of accidental fire is

highly doubtful.

6. I have considered the respective submissions of learned

counsel for the parties.

7. Having regard to the facts of the case and the nature of

serious allegations, the enlargement of the petitioners on

anticipatory bail, at this stage, when the investigations are

still underway will not be conducive to the fair

investigation. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail

applications of both the petitioners are dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

August 10, 2011 SS