Sandeep Kumar vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 525 Del

      $~47

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     BAIL APPLN. 774/2011

%             Judgment delivered on:25th January, 2012

      SANDEEP KUMAR                   ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Ms. Sima Gulati and
                      Sugam Puri, Advs.
               versus

      STATE                                ..... Respondent
                             Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for the State
                             ASI Jai Parkash, PS Alipur
      CORAM:

      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case initially allegations were levelled against 14 family members of the petitioner. However, 8 of them were not sent for trial and their names were put in Column No.2. So, in this case 06 accused persons are from the same family.

2. Ld. counsel further submits that the father, mother, 02 brothers and sister-in-law of the deceased have already been released on bail.

3. Ld. counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to letter dated 06.03.2009 issued by Vidyasagar Institute of Mental Health & Neurosciences, New Delhi addressed to SHO, Police Station, Alipur, Delhi by Mr. John Victor, Consultant Clinical Psychologist,

VIMHANS, Hospital, New Delhi wherein it is recorded as under:-

"Mr. Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Balbir Singh 28 years old from 552, Main Road, Bkhtawarpur, Delhi. With the hospital registration number 137292 along with his wife were in therapy for their marital problems. In the first session I have found that Mr. Sandeep and his wife have issues related to understanding and the marriage was not consummated because of the problems. On further investigation Mr. Sandeep told that he was not able to like her as wife and feeling low interest to go towards her. Slowly, he started to drift away from her and keep to himself. Later with the interventions from both sides (from his parents and in-laws) they tried to get along but in vain and it resulted to seek professional help through counselling. After listening to him, I have asked to bring his wife. On 15th Tuesday January 2008 he come along with his wife. His wife revealed that he is not at all interested to be with her and her marriage was not consummated till now. He doesn't consider her as wife. Likes to ask everything from the mother not from her. She asked "If he is not interested why he married me"

I allowed both of them to discuss their problems openly in my presence on discussion they decided to work towards solving the problems in their marital life. She promised to cooperate with her husband as well Mr. Sandeep promised to change his behaviour towards his wife. In the continuous sessions I have worked with Mr. Sandeep regarding his fears and his wishes towards his marital life. Shen Mr. Sandeep reported that he was not able to improve his feelings he reported that he don't want to spoil father's reputation and family's regard he revealed that he wants to kill self. On this statement I have asked to bring his

parents along with girl's parents with couple of elders if possible.

On 7th Friday March 2008 both the couple along with their parents came for the session. In which I explained that this marriage may not become successful and asked both the parents to discuss and take a decision. After the discussion the girl's father and boy's father decided to take mutual consent and separate the couple. Boy's father came forward and said that as this marriage is going to be dissolved and the girl is like his daughter so he will come forward to help her to get married again. Finally they left the session with the decision to separate the couple on mutual grounds."

4. Thereafter, on 10.04.2009 the deceased was found hanging. Ld. counsel further submits that identical allegations are levelled against the petitioner also whereas the co-accused mentioned above have already been released on bail. Out of total 25 prosecution witnesses 14 have already been examined the remaining witnesses are the police witnesses. Therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. The petitioner has already completed almost 04 years in custody. He has already suffered a lot. The trial shall take substantial time. Therefore, there is no purpose to keep him in custody.

5. On the other hand, ld. APP for the State submits that there have been demand of ` 5 lakhs and a Wagon-R car. Because of the said demand, she had been tortured. Therefore, she succumbed to the atrocities committed by the petitioners.

6. Ld. APP has drawn the attention of this Court to the part of the charge-sheet where the father of the deceased has made statement

before the SDM and stated that he made a telephone call on 09.04.2008 to find about the well being of his daughter on phone No. 01127721907, his daughter told him that last night her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and other family members had beaten her up and had tried to kill her by pressing her neck. She asked him to take her away or they would kill her. On 10.04.2008, he received a phone call from phone no. 9213489644 on his mobile no. 09319592661 from SHO Alipur that his daughter Kumud had died.

7. Ld. APP further submits that neither the petitioner nor any member of his family have ever made any call to the family of the deceased regarding her death. She further submits that the petitioner being the husband of the deceased is the main culprit who is responsible for whatever happened in the family and due to that the deceased succumbed to her life.

8. Ld. APP has fairly conceded that the FSL report suggests of hanging and it revealed that there is no anti-mortum injury on the body of the deceased. She has also fairly conceded that prior to the death of the deceased, no complaint made against the petitioner and his family members ever.

9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone 04 years in custody, the other co-accused have already been released on bail and the trial shall take substantial time, therefore, I deem it fit to admit the petitioner on bail.

10. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ` 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

11. BAIL APPLN. 774/2011 stands disposed of.

12. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J

JANUARY 25, 2012 RS