Sanjeev Dhir vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2012 Latest Caselaw 3397 Del

*             HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   BAIL APPN. No. 1168/2011

                                             Date of Decision : 21.05.2012

SANJEEV DHIR                                             ......Petitioner
                                    Through:      Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr.
                                                  Adv.    with Mr.Sandeep
                                                  Tyagi, Adv.

                                      Versus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                        ...... Respondent
                       Through:                   Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
                                                  Counsel for respondent
                                                  no.2(name not given)

                                             WITH

BAIL APPN. NO.999/2011

MADHURI                                                  ......Petitioner
                                    Through:      Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr.
                                                  Adv.    with Mr.Sandeep
                                                  Tyagi, Adv.

                                      Versus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                        ...... Respondent
                       Through:                   Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
                                                  Counsel for respondent
                                                  no.2(name not given)

                                             WITH

BAIL APPN. NO.1819/2011

SATYABIR SINGH                                           ......Petitioner
                                    Through:      Mr. Counsel (name not
                                                  given)

                                      Versus




Bail Appn. 1168/2011, 999/2011 & 1819/2011                        Page 1 of 9
 STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                  ...... Respondent
                       Through:              Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP

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

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. These are three applications - two filed by Sanjeev Dhir and

his wife, Madhuri who are brother-in-law and the sister-in-law

of the deceased for anticipatory bail and the third application

has been filed by Satyabir Singh, the Chachiya Sasur of the

deceased for grant of regular bail.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on the night of

22-23.3.2011, a PCR call regarding hanging of a woman was

received, which was marked to SI Kapil Khokhar for inquiry.

He visited the site and found one lady hanging from the

ceiling fan. The spot was inspected by the Crime Team and

the photographs were taken. Since the incident had taken

place in less than seven years, from the date of the marriage,

the SDM was informed who conducted an inquest and after

completing the formalities, the dead body was sent to GTB

Mortuary for postmortem. The statement of the father of the

deceased, named, Anju, wife of Arvind, resident of 363, Gali

No.6, Durga Puri, Delhi was recorded by the SDM who alleged

that Shaktu Mal, father-in-law, Ramanandi, mother-in-law,

Sanjeev Dhir, brother-in-law, Madhuri, sister-in-law and

Satyabir (Chachiya Sasur) were responsible for the death of

Anju, as they used to subject her to mental as well as physical

torture with a view to extract dowry by way of cash and kind.

3. It is the case of the Prosecution that immediately before her

death, the deceased had sent an SMS to her brother that her

husband and his entire family were responsible for her death.

On the basis of this allegation, an FIR No.58/2011 under

Sections 304-B/498-A/406/34IPC was registered by PS:M.S.

Park on 24.3.2011 and after the investigation, a Chargesheet

was filed against the husband, the parents-in-law and

Satyabir Singh (Chachia Sasur) who are facing trial. I have

been informed that supplementary Chargesheet against

Sanjeev Dhir and Madhuri has not been filed, as they could

not be arrested and custodially interrogated. It is further the

case of the Prosecution that the Supplementary Statement of

the brother of the deceased records specific allegations

against both Sanjeev Dhir and Madhuri for causing the death

of the deceased.

4. Mr. Ramesh Gupta, the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioners has vehemently prayed for the grant of

anticipatory bail to Sanjeev Dhir and Madhuri on the ground

that there has been no specific role attributed to either of the

two petitioners and the allegations against them have been

leveled by the brother of the deceased only in the

Supplementary Statement. It has also been stated that both

these petitioners, who happen to be husband and wife,

though related to the husband of the deceased, were living

separately in the same building and, therefore, they could

not be denied the benefit of anticipatory bail, as they had

absolutely no role in the commission of the offence. It has

also been pointed out that so far as Madhuri is concerned, she

got married to Sanjeev Dhir after the deceased had got

married to her brother-in-law. Therefore, there has been

hardly any occasion for her to make the demands of dowry or

subject the deceased to cruelty. In order to substantiate the

claim of living separately, the learned Senior Counsel has also

relied upon certain documents in order to show that both the

petitioners were having a separate kitchen. It has also been

contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the present

petitioners had joined the investigation and, therefore, there

is absolutely no reason to deny them the benefit of

anticipatory bail.

5. The learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on a

judgment of the Apex Court in Kans Raj -vs- State of Punjab

& Ors., 2000 II AD (Cr.) SC 481, wherein it has been

observed that in all such criminal disputes, there is a

tendency to enrope every relation of the husband. On the

strength of this judgment, the learned Senior Counsel has

contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated by

the parents of the deceased only out of enmity because they

have suffered the serious loss of their daughter.

6. So far as Satyabir Singh (Chachia Sasur) is concerned, it has

been contended by his learned counsel that the petitioner was

living somewhere in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and he had

absolutely no role to play. Moreover, even if it is assumed for

the sake of argument that Satyabir Singh (Chachia Sasur) had

made some demand, it would not have benefitted him in any

manner. It has been contended that Satyabir Singh (Chachiya

Sasur) has already been in custody for more than a year and

no useful purpose would be served by keeping him

incarcerated when the charges against him have already been

framed.

7. The learned Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed

the grant of anticipatory bail to the two petitioners and

regular bail to Satyabir Singh (Chachiya Sasur) on the ground

that the allegations against all three of them are very serious.

So far as the setting up of a separate kitchen and the living

room, as alleged by Madhuri and Sanjeev are concerned, the

learned APP has drawn the attention of the Court to the

observations made by the learned Trial Court which had

observed that it is after the incident that the petitioners had

applied for the grant of Ration Card and thus it has been

sought to be urged that the evidence was sought to be

created to show that they were living separately. The learned

APP has also taken the Court through the Supplementary

Statement of the brother of the deceased and has urged that

specific roles have been attributed to both Madhuri and

Sanjeev because they were living separately does not mean

that they could not have subjected the deceased to demand of

dowry and cruelty. It has been contended by the learned APP

that the Prosecution has already noted in the Chargesheet

that supplementary Chargesheet against Madhuri and Sanjeev

shall be filed only after subjecting them to custodial

interrogation. It is therefore, submitted that they may not be

granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

8. The learned APP has also drawn the attention of the Court to

the judgment of the Apex Court in State Rep. by the C.B.I. -

vs- Anil Sharma, AIR 1997 SC 3806 and urged that the scope

of interrogation varies in case the accused is having

anticipatory bail order in his pocket and in case where no such

protection is granted. Therefore, it was urged that the

protection, which has been granted to the petitioners, may be

withdrawn so that the petitioners are taken into custody and

subjected to interrogation to arrive at the truth.

9. So far as Satyabir (Chachia Sasur) is concerned, it has been

contended by the learned counsel that the charges against the

accused persons have already been converted from 304-B IPC

to 302 IPC and the case has already been fixed for recording

of statement of witnesses in the immediate future and in case

Satyabir Singh (Chachiya Sasur) is granted the bail, he is

likely to influence the witnesses, which may impact the case

of the Prosecution. Therefore, it has been contended that the

application of Satyabir Singh (Chachiya Sasur) may not be

allowed at this stage.

10. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the

records as well as the Police file. Admittedly, the allegations

against all the petitioners are very serious in nature,

inasmuch as the deceased, a young lady has lost her life in

less than three years from the date of her marriage. So far as

Satyabir Singh (Chachiya Sasur) is concerned, the charges

under Section 304-B IPC have already been converted to

Section 302 IPC and the case is already fixed for recording of

statements of other relations of the deceased. Therefore,

releasing the petitioner, Satyabir Singh (Chachiya Sasur) at

this stage would only give him an opportunity to influence the

witnesses, which cannot be permitted to be done. Therefore,

the application of Satyabir Singh (Chachiya Sasur), at this

stage, is rejected, as being without any merit.

11. So far as Sanjeev and Madhuri are concerned, they are

admittedly living in the same building, though they are

claiming that they were living separately in a different floor

with a different kitchen. This is totally immaterial, as the fact

remains that they were living in the same building and the

brother of the deceased had made specific allegations against

both of them, therefore, these allegations need to be tested

by subjecting both the petitioners to custodial interrogation,

as an innocent young lady had lost her life in less than three

years from the date of her marriage. Merely because the

petitioners were having the apprehension of their arrest and

they had joined the investigation, this is not a good enough

reason for them to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

12. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, I am not

inclined to exercise the discretion of anticipatory bail in favour

of Madhuri and Sanjeev and regular bail to Satyabir Singh

(Chachiya Sasur). Accordingly, their respective applications

for the grant of anticipatory and regular bail are rejected.

V.K. SHALI, J.

May 21, 2012 tp