Munish Sharma vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 914 Del

          HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI

+                     Bail Application No.1502/2011


                                   Date of Decision: 09.02.2012

MUNISH SHARMA                                      ... Petitioner
                                Through: Mr.Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv.
                                         With Mr.Ravi Kant, Adv.

                                Versus

STATE                                             ...Respondents
                                Through: Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP for
                                         the State.

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


V.K. SHALI, J.

1. This is an application for grant of regular bail, in

respect of FIR No.234/2011, under section 498-A/306

IPC, registered with PS Begum Pur, Delhi.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I

have also gone through the record. The allegations

against the petitioner are under section 498-A read with

section 306 of the IPC. Although, the learned APP has

taken the Court through the statement of the father of

the deceased as well as statement of the mother of the

deceased, recorded under section 161 Cr.PC, wherein

the allegations are made with regard to the demand of

dowry and apparently subjecting the deceased to cruelty

but that, at best, would constitute an offence under

section 498-A IPC, which carries a maximum punishment

of three years.

3. So far as the allegations of abetment to suicide are

concerned, prima facie, in my view, there is no overt act

by way of incitement, goading, instigation, prompting,

which could be attributed to the petitioner, which have

led the deceased to end her life. On the contrary, the

deceased is purported to have left a note, wherein she

has taken the full responsibility of ending her

unfortunate life. The said note also shows that the

deceased was a very sensitive person and had strained

matrimonial relations. She was not able to get the job

despite being well qualified. She referred to the

allegations of the husband that her parents were

interfering in the matrimonial affairs, while as she was of

the opinion that they were helping her and her family. A

reading of the note shows that she was unable to cope

up with the stresses and strains of the matrimonial life

and this resulted in her death.

4. In any case, all these questions, whether it was

suicide simpliciter or whether there was any abetment

for the same, are to be established during the course of

trial so far as the guilt of the accused is concerned. The

petitioner has been in custody since 19.09.2011. The

charge sheet has already been filed. He has admittedly

two children. By keeping the petitioner incarcerated, the

children not only have lost the company of their dear

mother but would also be deprived of the company of

their father. In addition to this, there are no public

witnesses. The witnesses are the parents and the

relations, if any, of the deceased, who cannot be said to

be amenable to influence by the petitioner. There are no

allegations that the petitioner would flee from the

processes of law.

5. Keeping in view the above facts and totality of

circumstances, I admit the petitioner to bail on his

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-

with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of

the trial Court. The petitioner shall not leave National

Capital Region of Delhi or change his address without the

permission of the Court. He shall make his mobile

number available to the IO. He shall also not temper

with the evidence.

6. Expression of any opinion hereinbefore shall not be

construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and

the same is only tentative for the purpose of deciding

the present bail application and shall not be cited by any

of the parties to address arguments with regard to the

framing of charges or any other matter during the trial

or at the conclusion thereof.

7. DASTI.

V.K. SHALI, J.

February 09, 2012 SS