Shakuntala Devi & Murti Devi vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2011 Latest Caselaw 1099 Del

               * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of Reserve: 8th February, 2011
                                             Date of Order: 23rd February, 2011

+ Bail. Appln. 412 of 2010
%                                                                  23.02.2011

SHKUNTALA DEVI @ MURTI DEVI                        ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Rajat Wadhwa & Mr. Molinder Pal
                   Singh, Advocate.

                            versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                                      ..... Respondent
                            Through: Ms O.P. Saxena, Addl. PP


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?

JUDGMENT

1. This application for bail has been made on behalf of applicant who is

facing trial under Section 498-A/304B/34 IPC.

2. The applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and is in JC since 17th

August, 2009. The deceased was married to accused Praveen Aggarwal on

13th July, 2005. She had committed suicide on 9th March, 2009 by hanging

herself after locking her room from inside. She had a male child from the

wedlock. When search of the room of the deceased was conducted, police

recovered a card on the back of which the deceased had left behind a note

reading as under:

"To My Dear Husband Praveen K,

I am very sorry

I love you very much and I like you most in the world. But I have not been able to understand you properly as to what hope do you have from me. When I came to this house I was under the impression that I have got a family as I wished and I got a very loving and understanding Husband and so I was very happy but you could not understand my feeling. I only want that you understand my feeling and love towards you because I am incomplete without you."

3. At the time when deceased had locked herself in the room her husband

and other male members of the family were not there as they had already left

for business. The other daughter-in-law of the family informed them and the

parents of the girl immediately. However, by the time the male members

reached the house and broke open the door, the deceased had already

committed suicide. She was immediately removed to Saroj Hospital where

she was declared brought dead. Father of the deceased made a statement

before the SDM that the deceased was being harassed by her in-laws for

dowry. She used to be taunted that she comes from a poor family and her

parents did not spend on her same amount of money as on the other

daughter. The in-laws were asking her to bring a lakh-two lakh rupees. In the

month of January of that year i.e. in 2009 when she had visited her parents,

her parents gave her ` 30,000/-. The father of the prosecutrix had told her in-

laws that he had a private service and had already spent on the marriage of

his daughter as per his capacity and he was unable to give further dowry. He

stated that it was not a suicide committed by his daughter but it was a murder

of his daughter.

4. The allegations of dowry demand were made against every family

member and four of them are facing trial namely husband, mother-in-law,

father-in-law and brother of husband.

5. Statements of parents of the deceased have already been recorded in

the court. After considering the cross-examination of the parents it is

apparent that the husband of the deceased had opened a bank account in the

name of the deceased after marriage. This bank account was being operated

by the deceased herself. In the bank account she was regularly depositing

money given to her by husband. It is also clear that couple had gone to visit

various places and had gone for honeymoon. Deceased's sister had also

visited her in-laws house and stayed there. Cross examination of the

witnesses examined so far, coupled with suicide note left behind by the

deceased compel me to grant bail to the accused, though it would not be

appropriate to comment further on the merits of the case as it may prejudice

the case before the trial court.

6. I, therefore, direct that applicant be released on her furnishing personal

bond in the sum of ` 50,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction

of trial court concerned.

FEBRUARY 23,          2011                     SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
awanish