Delhi High Court
Raj Rani vs State on 23 February, 2011
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 8th February 2011
Date of Order: February 23, 2011
+ Bail Appln. No. 1750/2010
% 23.02.2011
Raj Rani ...Petitioner
Versus
State ...Respondent
Counsels:
Mr. Kirti Uppal, Mr. R.S. Malik and Dr. R.S. Tehlan and Mr. Surya for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.
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. This application for bail has been made on behalf of the petitioner who is mother-
in-law of the deceased and is facing trial under Sections 498A/304B Indian Penal Code.
The deceased in this case was married to Ramesh on 14th April 2007. On 16th November
2009, an information was received that she was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital after
consuming poison. She did not leave behind a dying declaration. The statement of father
of the deceased was recorded and in his statement father alleged that one month after
marriage, in laws of his daughter started harassing her. Once she was beaten so much
that the bone of her nose broke down and his daughter to be operated in a hospital in
Prashant Vihar. He had received information of quarrel from his daughter on telephone
from his daughter that a day before she was admitted in hospital and his daughter
reported that she had been beaten by her in laws and they had again started harassing
Bail Appln.1750/2010 Page 1 Of 3
her. She had requested him to send his son to his house. However, after half an hour, he
received a telephone call from his damad Ramesh that his daughter consumed poison
and she was taken to Jagjivan Ram Hospital. She was later on admitted to Safdarjung
Hospital. He alleged that in laws of her daughter namely her husband Ramesh, Sasur
Sahib Singh, Sash Raj Rani, Nanand Manju and Nandoi Kuku, Anil, elder brother of her
husband used to harass his daughter for dowry. A case under Section 498A/304B IPC
was registered against all the persons.
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner/ applicant that in the initial
statement made to Executive Magistrate complainant i.e. father of the deceased had not
alleged any harassment meted out to his daughter on account of dowry or any cruelty
being meted out to her soon before her death. It is only later on in his statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C recorded after many days that father made vague allegations against
every member of the family under Sections 498A/304B IPC. He submitted that in view of
these vague and general allegations against every member of the family of the husband
including married sister who were living separate, the learned Sessions Judge granted
anticipatory bail to the married sisters, their husbands and brother in law and father in
law. He submits that mother in law was denied bail only because she was mother in law.
He further submits that the allegations against mother in law were the same as the
allegations against other family members and being a mother in law is not a crime in
itself and on the ground of parity, the bail should be granted to the present applicant.
3. On the other hand, learned APP has submitted that the unnatural death in this
case had taken place about two and half years of the marriage. The deceased left
behind a child of about two years of age and there is statement of father of the deceased
that she was beaten on the same day as also four days prior to the incident. He further
submits that the parents of the deceased have been examined in the court and they
have supported the case of the prosecution.
Bail Appln.1750/2010 Page 2 Of 3
4. It is an undisputed fact that the allegations of harassment on account of dowry
demand were made by the father of the deceased against each and every member of
the family of husband. No specific dowry demand was stated and in his earlier statement
made before the Special Executive Magistrate, these allegations were missing. On the
basis of same allegations, the other accused persons have been granted bail by the
learned Sessions Judge. If two accused persons are similarly placed, both ought to be
given equal treatment in a case. If the role of two accused persons is same in a crime
and court considers one fit for granting bail, the other accused on the ground of parity is
also entitled for grant of bail.
5. The parents of the girl have assigned same role to everyone in the family of in
laws, whether they were living in the same house or not. The husband and wife in this
case were living on a separate floor separate from the parents. Other relatives were
living at far off places, still the allegations against everyone were same. The bail cannot
be denied to mother in law despite the allegations qua her and other accused persons
being same simply because she is mother in law. Being mother in law is not a crime in
itself.
6. I, therefore, allow this bail application. It is directed that the applicant/ petitioner
be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court concerned. However, the
applicant shall ensure that the trial is not prolonged by seeking adjournments and if a
witness is present, the same shall not be sent unexamined because of excuses made by
the counsel for the applicant/ accused.
7. The application stands disposed of.
February 23, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd
Bail Appln.1750/2010 Page 3 Of 3
