Ravinder Singh vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 1478 Del

*              HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   BAIL APPL. No. 1626/2011

                                 Date of Decision : 02.03.2012

RAVINDER SINGH                                 ...... Petitioner
                              Through: Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Adv.

                               Versus

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

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

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail by the

petitioner in respect of FIR No. 425/2010, under Section

498A/304B IPC, registered by P.S. Mehrauli, New Delhi.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 24.09.2010 at

about 2.00 AM an information vide DD No. 97B was received

at P.S. Mehrauli from Duty Constable Satbir at Safdarjang

Hospital that Smt. Meena Manpreet Kaur, W/o Ravinder aged

around 21 years, R/o D-755, Chhattarpur Pahari, Mehrauli,

Delhi was admitted by her husband at Safdarjang Hospital

where after checkup the Doctor has declared her dead. This

information was handed over to ASI Rajpal Singh who on

enquiry found that the deceased Meena Manpreet Kaur was

got married to Ravinder Singh on 21.02.2008. Ms. Juhi

Mukharjee, SDM (Hauz Khas) recorded the statement of

Mahinder Singh and Smt. Paro Bai, parents of the deceased

respectively. They levelled allegations against the father-in-

law/Mohinder Singh, Mother-in-law/Banso and

husband/Ravinder Singh for demand of dowry and subjecting

the deceased to cruelty. On 24.09.2010, itself the post

mortem of the deceased was got conducted at Safdarjung

Hospital, which revealed that 'death was due to hemorrhage

shock consequent upon 'uterine rupture', however, viscera

has been preserved to rule out any

poisoning/intoxication/medication. On 09.10.2010, the viscera

was also sent to FLS, Rohini, Delhi and a reply has been

received from the FLS, Rohini, Delhi that there was no

chemical, microscopic and TLC examination metallic poisons,

ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphates, alkaloids, bar

bitrates, tranquilizers and pesticides could be detected in

exhibits which were sent.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Manan,

as well as the learned APP and have also gone through the

record.

4. The main contention of Mr. Manan is that the petitioner's wife

had gone for abortion two or three time in the past also and

this time also the deceased had gone for abortion. The doctor

had opined that death has been caused due to hemorrhage

shock consequent upon uterine rupture which had been

caused by introduction and manipulation of foreign

object/instrument in the uterus. It was contended by him that

Dr. Jatin Bodwal, in his report dated 10.03.2011 has observed

that though the injury which is purported to have been

suffered by the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the

ordinary course of nature but in such cases generally, the

cause of death is accidental. It has been contended that there

are contradictory reports given by the Doctor, and therefore,

the benefit at this stage ought to be given to the accused by

enlarging him on bail. It is contended that the purpose of

denial of bail is not to punish the accused, but the purpose is

to see he attends to the trial, and thereof, there is no

allegation against the petitioner that he will flee from the

processes of law. It has been contended that he has roots in

the society and will abide by all the terms and conditions

which this Court may like to impose.

5. The learned APP has vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. It has been stated by the learned APP that the petitioner has

not joined the investigation despite having been protected by

this Court earlier. It has been also stated that it was not the

simple case of miscarriage, it is a case where further

investigation is required by the custodial interrogation of the

petitioner, to find out as to what was the reason for the

frequent miscarriage or abortion which being undertaken by

the deceased. It has been contended, that there was a

definite statement made by the parents of the prosecutrix

making allegations of demand of dowry in the immediate

proximity of the death, and therefore, this was a kind of

modus operandi of abortion which was being used by the

present petitioner to bring the life of the victim to an end.

7. The learned APP has also referred to the judgment of CBI Vs.

Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 to contend that when a

person is interrogated with the anticipatory bail order in his

pocket, the result of the interrogation is more of a ritual or a

formality rather than elucidating to arrive at the truth by

investigating agency. It is therefore, stated that it is not a fit

case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. I have given my careful consideration to the entire facts. I

agree with the contentions of the learned APP that the result

of custodial interrogation is definitely elucidatory in nature

unless and until custodial interrogation is done truth will not

surface. It does not necessarily mean that a third degree

measure would be used by the investigating agency to reveal

the truth, but certainly when a person is in custody and does

not have the order of protecting his liberty in his pocket, he is

bound to cooperate with the investigating agency.

9. In the instant case, the life of a young lady has been lost and

the investigating agency is not able to find out, as to why and

what was the reason of the frequent abortion to which she

was being subject to. Admittedly, the deceased was married

to the petitioner against whom there are allegations of

demand of dowry, therefore, I feel that this is a case in which

truth will be revealed only if the police given free hand to

interrogate the petitioner rather than protect the petitioner by

an anticipatory bail order. I agree with the counsel for the

petitioner, that there is no allegation against the petitioner

that the petitioner will flee from the processes of law, but that

is only one of the consideration of releasing a person on bail

and other consideration which is far more important is that

the gravity of the offence and the seriousness of the

allegations. On both these counts, I feel that the petitioner is

not able to make out a case in as much as the allegations

against the petitioner are very serious in nature, which may

turned to be a case under Section 302/304B or 306 IPC so far

as the death of the deceased is concerned. I, accordingly, do

not consider it to be a fit case of extending the benefit of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

10. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.

V.K. SHALI, J

March 02, 2012 KP