Sushma Jain vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 4890 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   BAIL APPLICATION NO.283/2012
                    BAIL APPLICATION NO.1164/2012

                                      Decided on :   22.08.2012

Bail Appl. No.283/2012

PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN                       ..... Petitioner
           Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, Mr.Ajay
           Kumar and Mr.Randeep Kumar, Advocates.

                             versus

STATE                                     ..... Respondent
                      Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP

                             AND

Bail Appl. No.1164/2012

SUSHMA JAIN                                         ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate.

                             versus

STATE                                     ..... Respondent
                      Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J.

1. This order shall dispose of two bail applications bearing

no.283/12 and 1164/12 filed by Pramod Kumar Jain and

his wife Sushma Jain in respect of FIR no.19/2010, under

Section 498A/304B/34 IPC registered by PS: Mansarovar

Park in respect of which trial is pending before the Court

of Sessions.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

have gone through the record.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners

is that both Pramod Kumar Jain and Sushma Jain are in

judicial custody since 20.9.2010 and the material

witnesses have already been examined. It has been

contended by him that Shashank Jain, the son of the

present petitioners and the brother in law of the

deceased had already been enlarged on bail by this Court

vide order dated 13.12.2010 and on the basis of parity,

the present petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail.

4. On merits, it was contended that the testimony of the

main witness i.e. PW-1/Girender Singh, the father of the

deceased is full of improvements and contradictions

which clearly shows that there was no demand of dowry

or subjecting the deceased to any mental or physical

cruelty before the death of the deceased. It is also

contended by him that the extensive cross examination

of the witness clearly reveals that the said witness has

made considerable improvements over the oral

statement which he had made to the police.

5. As regards, the parity with the case of Shashank Jain, it

was contended by him that except at one place, the

name of Sushma Jain does not appear in the FIR or in

the statement of PW-1 and therefore, she has been only

made as a scapegoat on account of the fact that she

happens to be the mother in law of the deceased.

6. Per contra, the learned APP took the Court through the

statement of PW-1/Girender Singh and referred to the

portions of the statements, where not only the name of

Pramod Kumar Jain but also of Sushma Jain has

appeared. He has contended that there is sufficient

evidence which has been brought on record by the

prosecution, so as to implicate the present petitioners in

the commission of serious offences of dowry death and

culpable homicide of which they have been charged and

therefore, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail as

there is every possibility that they may flee away from

the processes of law.

7. As regards the parity, it was contended by the learned

APP that no parity can be claimed by the petitioners with

the case of their son Shashank Jain, because there is no

allegation which prima facie, proves the demand of

dowry qua Shashak Jain. In addition to this, it has been

contended by him that it has been prima facie,

established that Shashank Jain was living separately

while as, the petitioners, though they were living

separately, but were living in the same locality and they

had been frequently visiting the house of the deceased

and it is during this interaction that the petitioners used

to subject the deceased to various atrocities with a view

to demand dowry which ultimately resulted in her

unfortunate death that too after few days of her

marriage.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP

and gone through the statement of PW-1 as well as the

other voluminous records which have been annexed

along with the bail applications.

9. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties, certain facts are essential to be

mentioned.

10. The elder son of the petitioners named Shivank Jain got

married to one Anshu/deceased. This marriage had

been solemnized secretly by the parties without the

consent of their parents on 18.5.2009.

11. A formal marriage function was held for the benefit of the

community to give it a colour of an arranged marriage on

12.12.2009 in Aman Banquet Hall, Rajender Nagar,

Sahibabad (UP). The death of the deceased took place

on 25.1.2010. Thus, the death of the deceased in the

instant case had taken place within a short span of

almost 43/44 days from the date of solemnization of

marriage. Before this period of 43/44 days, the public

witness/PW-1 Girender Singh, father of the deceased has

testified that his daughter was subjected to demand of

dowry in one way or the other with a view to harass her.

It has also come on record that the demands were even

made five days before the marriage as a consequence of

which, the father of the deceased had to withdraw some

money from his account and borrow some from other

resources and pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs to the father of the

boy.

12. All these incidents which have taken place in this short

span of 43/44 days have been graphically explained by

the father of the deceased in his testimony. The witness

has been subjected to extensive cross examination and

he is sought to be discredited by confronting him with his

statement which is purported to have been made by him

first in point of time. It has been urged that all these

details have not been given in his first statement

recorded u/S 161 Cr.P.C. It has been laid down by the

Apex Court in number of cases that while dealing with

the bail application of an accused, the Court does not

have to conduct a minute dissection of the evidence of

the prosecution and only a bird's eye view is to be taken

on the basis of overall evidence. The minute dissection

of the evidence cannot be done on account of the fact

that it is going to prejudice either of the two parties.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the instant case

during the course of his submissions has sought to do a

minute dissection of the testimony of PW-1 which I

refrain to do. Suffice it would be here to mention that

this Court has gone through the testimony of PW-1 and

all other relevant documents and certainly there are

serious allegations against the petitioners which if seen in

the light of the fact that the deceased was a young

woman, who lost her life within a short span of 43/44

days from the date of her formal marriage, becomes a

serious issue and concern. Therefore, with regard to the

gravity of allegations and the nature of evidence which

has been brought on record, which admittedly this Court

has seen, raises serious concern with regard to the grant

of bail to the petitioners at this stage.

14. I feel that because of the serious nature of allegations, it

will not be just and proper to extend the benefit of

regular bail to the petitioners at this stage when the trial

is on.

15. So far as the question of parity is concerned, I do not

feel that any parity can be drawn between the case of

Shashank Jain i.e. the second son of the petitioners and

the present petitioners who happens to be the parents in

law of the deceased, on account of the fact that

admittedly Shashank Jain was living separately and there

is neither any allegation of demand of dowry by him nor

does his name figure anywhere in the testimony of PW-1.

As against this, the names of the petitioners are

repeatedly appearing in the statement of PW-1 and

though they were living separately, in the same locality

at some distance but it has come on record that they

were very frequently visiting the house of the deceased

and interfering in her matrimonial affair by subjecting her

to demand of dowry in one way or the other.

Accordingly, no parity can be drawn between the two

cases.

16. In the totality of circumstances, without going into the

other parameters governing the grant of bail, I feel the

very nature of allegations are so serious that it do not

warrant the grant of bail to the petitioners at this stage.

17. For the reasons mentioned above, the regular bail

applications of both the petitioners are rejected.

18. Expression of any opinion hereinabove may not be

treated as an expression on the merits of the case.

V.K. SHALI, J.

AUGUST 22, 2012 RN