Delhi High Court
Sangita vs State Nct Of Delhi on 5 December, 2011
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPL. NO.1601/2011
BAIL APPL. NO.1602/2011
Date of Decision : 05.12.2011
BAIL APPL. NO.1601/2011
SANGITA ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.N.Hariharan, Adv.
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
AND
BAIL APPL. NO.1602/2011
LAVESH ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.Hariharan, Adv.
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
have gone through the record.
2. The contention of Mr. Hariharan, the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that Sangita and Lavesh are the real
sister and brother of the husband of the deceased. It
has been contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that if one reads the complaint lodged by Smt.
Veena, W/o Hira Lal, R/o 3634, Raigerpura, Delhi,
mother of the deceased, which has been converted into
an FIR No. 259/2011, under Section 498A/304B IPC
registered by P.S. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, there is no
allegation in the said complaint that either of the
petitioners had subjected the deceased to cruelty with an
intention to demand dowry. It has been stated that the
name of Lavesh was not at all mentioned in the
complaint. So far as the sister-in-law/Sangita is
concerned, the only allegation against her is that she
used to taunt the deceased and trouble her. There was
no specific allegation against her that there was a
demand of dowry. It has been contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that both the sister and the
brother of the husband of the deceased were living
separately. It has also been stated by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that it has been laid down by
this Court that in order to make out a prima facie offence
under Section 304B, IPC, there must be a linkage
between the demand of dowry and the resultant death of
the deceased. In case, the link is missing the
presumption cannot be drawn and the petitioner is
entitled to grant of anticipatory bail.
3. I have gone through the judgments cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
4. The learned APP has vehementally contested the prayer
for grant of bail on the ground that the deceased had
allegedly committed suicide after about one year and
eight months and further she was pregnant at the time
when she had taken her life. It has been stated that the
FIR which has been registered on the basis of a
complaint filed by the mother of the deceased is not
supposed to be an encyclopedia. The police during the
course of the investigation has recorded the
supplementary statement of Hira Lal, father of the
deceased, the neighbour of the deceased near the
matrimonial home as well as the supplementary
statement of the complainant/mother of the deceased. It
has been stated that on the basis of these supplementary
statements, it has been clearly made out that as far as
both the petitioners are concerned, there was a definite
allegation against them. They had subjected the
deceased to cruelty with a view to demand dowry right
from the date of marriage and also immediately before
the date of the death.
5. The learned APP has contended that it has come in the
supplementary statement that Lavesh was declared
successful in the draw of lots in respect of a flat by the
DDA and he had got an allotment letter of a flat at
Vasant Kunj, Delhi, for which he had to make a payment
of Rs.5,00,000/-. He made the demand of
Rs.5,00,000/- from the deceased. It is, therefore,
stated that since the case is at the threshold itself, the
petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that
so far as the allegation of demand of dowry or payment
of `5,00,000/- for the part payment of the cost of the flat
is concerned, the said payment was made by Lavesh in
the month of May, 2011 itself, from his account. The
statement of the account of Lavesh was attached along
with the petition to show that his account was debited to
that extent. It is, therefore, contended that it was only a
wild allegation and an afterthought.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. The deceased had committed suicide in less than two
years from the date of her marriage. Moreover, she was
stated to have been pregnant at the time of taking her
own life. No doubt, the complaint of Ms. Veena, the
mother of the deceased has been converted into FIR,
there may not be a graphic description about the demand
of dowry raised by the petitioner. But that is not the
evidence which alone has to be seen by the Court at the
stage of the grant of bail. The Court also has to see the
evidence which has been gathered otherwise and the
statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The supplementary
statement of Veena and Hira Lal, parents of the deceased
as well as the neighbour categorically makes out a case
prima face for investigation to show that immediately
before the death of the deceased the petitioner in
conjunction with other family members had subjected the
deceased to cruelty with a view to demand dowry, and
therefore, the allegations against the petitioner in my
view at this stage are very serious in nature. Unless free
hand is given to the investigating agency, the truth will
not surface. The Supreme Court in the case titled
Samunder Singh Vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1987 SC
737 has also not approved the grant of bail in a case of
such a nature.
9. For the reasons mentioned above and since the case is
still at the threshold, I do not feel that it is a fit case
where the benefit of anticipatory bail deserves to be
extended to the petitioner.
10. Expression of any opinion may not be treated as an
expression on the merits of the case.
V.K. SHALI, J.
DECEMBER 05, 2011
KP
