Sanjay Kumar Singhal vs State Of Delhi
2011 Latest Caselaw 5385 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI



+                   BAIL APPL. NO.725/2011

                                 Date of Decision : 08.11.2011


SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL                             ...... Petitioner

                              Through: Mr. V.Madhukar, Adv.

                               Versus

STATE OF DELHI                              ......      Respondent

Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, 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 in the Digest ? NO

V.K. SHALI, J. (oral)

1. This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the

petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased. An FIR

No.109/2011, u/S 304B/34 IPC, P.S. Samaypur Badli was

registered on the basis of a complaint made by one

Sh.Karam Chand Gupta, S/o Late Sh.K.C.Gupta against

the present petitioner, parents-in-law and sister in law of

the deceased.

2. It is alleged in the complaint that the deceased, Lalita

Gupta was married to the present petitioner on

27.11.2009 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. At

the time of marriage, keeping in view the financial

position of the complainant, a sum of Rs.15-16 lacs was

spent on the marriage. The deceased was highly

educated and was working as a teacher and earning

Rs.10,000/- approximately. Soon after the marriage,

the deceased was subjected to mental cruelty,

harassment and physical assault by her husband and

other family members with a view to get more dowry out

of sheer greed for money. It is alleged that she was

denied the basic day to day needs and subjected to filthy

and vulgar language and humiliation repeatedly. It is

further stated that on 12.4.2010, when she was in family

way, it was alleged by the present petitioner that the

child in the womb of the deceased was not that of the

present petitioner. She was forced to abort the child.

The deceased, out of desperation shifted to her parent's

house sometime in January. On 2.8.2010 in the

morning she had informed her brother, who was going to

drop her at the bus stop, that she will be a little late as

her husband i.e. the present petitioner was coming to

meet her in, Japanese park. It is alleged that the

petitioner might have given her some substance for

eating after which her health condition deteriorated in

the evening and she was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital

where she was declared as brought dead. Since the

police failed to register an FIR, father of the deceased

was constrained to lodge a complaint with the learned

ACMM, Rohini Courts, Delhi where upon the present FIR

was registered.

3. The case is at the stage of investigation. The petitioner

had filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail

which was rejected by the Court of Sessions.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the present bail application has been

filed. It has been contended by the learned counsel for

the petitioner that in order to satisfy the ingredients of

Section 304B IPC, one of the basic requirement is that

there must be proximity in the demand of dowry and the

date of death in order to give rise to a presumption

under Section 113B of the Evidence Act 1872, against

the present petitioner. It is contended that admittedly

in the instant case, the deceased came to her parent's

house sometime in January, while as, she died in the first

week of August, and therefore, there is no proximity of

time between the date of alleged demand of dowry and

the date of death, so as to draw any presumption, in

terms of the Evidence Act, against the petitioner.

Further, it is contended that she has not die at the

matrimonial home and therefore, the petitioner is sought

to be falsely implicated by the father of the deceased on

account of loss of his child.

5. The second submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the allegation that the death of the

deceased might have happened on account of some

poisonous substance having been given by the present

petitioner is only a surmise and conjecture. As a matter

of fact, it is stated that the very fact of the petitioner

having met the deceased, in itself is a conjuncture in as

much as, it was only stated that the deceased would be

meeting the petitioner, while as there is no prima facie

evidence to show whether she had met the petitioner or

not.

6. So far as the allegations of the poison having been given

to the deceased is concerned, it is contended that

'Aluminium Phosphide' has been found in the Forensic

Science Laboratory in the Viscera report of the deceased.

It is contended that this could not have been given by

the petitioner to the deceased for the simple reason that

the MLC as well as the post mortem report filed by the

investigating agency shows that the deceased was

brought to the hospital by her family members who had

reported that while eating her food, she had fallen giddy

and thereafter, collapsed whereupon she was taken to

Jaipur Golden Hospital. It is contented that, if at all, she

had died, it is only on account of poison which she might

have consumed herself, and therefore, the offence under

Section 304B IPC could not have been made out against

the petitioner. It is also contended that according to

Modi's Texicology, so far as the poison 'Aluminium

Phosphide' is concerned, it is a kind of poison, which will

create ulcers in the mouth, if taken orally making it very

painful for the incumbent to have the second morsel

which is against the prosecution story that the deceased

had fallen ill after consuming food. It is surmised that

the brother of the deceased, himself, might have given

something to eat to the deceased. It is because of the

aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. The learned APP has vehemently contested the plea of

the petitioner for grant of bail. He has relied upon the

judgment of the Apex Court in case titled Samundar

Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1987 SC 737 and

stated that the deceased had died in less than a year's

time from the date of marriage and the case is still at the

investigation stage, therefore, the grant of anticipatory

bail to the petitioner is going to hamper the

investigation.

8. Apart from that, it is contended that there are specific

allegations made by the brother of the deceased who

was informed by the deceased herself that she will be

meeting the present petitioner during the course of the

day on 2.8.2010, where upon it is possible that the

petitioner might have given some substance to the

deceased to eat which turned out to be poisonous. It is

contended that in any case, these are matters of

investigation and have to be verified during the

interrogation of the petitioner and the examination of the

witnesses.

9. I have heard the submissions made by the respective

sides and gone through the record.

10. The case is admittedly at the threshold of investigation

and the deceased who was of young age died in

suspicious circumstances, in less than a year's time from

the date of her marriage. It was specifically stated by

the brother of the petitioner that the deceased had

informed him on 2.8.2010 while he was going to drop her

at the school that she would be late on the said date on

account of the fact that she was intending to meet the

petitioner and incidentally on the same day, the incident

has taken place. Therefore, the possibility of foul play by

the petitioner has to be investigated and this can be done

only by interrogation of the petitioner.

11. So far as the question of proximity of time between the

date of the death and the date of the last dowry

demand, which is stated to have been made in January,

is concerned, it is stated that this is also a question of

investigation. The nature of allegations against the

petitioner being very serious in nature, I do not feel that

it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail in view of the

decision of the Apex Court in Samundar Singh's case

(supra). Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

NOVEMBER 08, 2011 RN