Danish & Anr. vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 6544 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   BAIL APPL. No.1454/2011

                                  Date of Decision : 08.11.2011

DANISH & ANR.                                  ...... Petitioners
                               Through: Mr. F.Haq, Adv.

                                Versus

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


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

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment ?
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest ?

V.K. SHALI, J.(oral)

1.     This     is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail by the

       brother in law and the father in law of the deceased for

       an offence under Section 304B/498-A IPC registered vide

       FIR no.336/2011 by P.S. Jamia Nagar.

2.     The main contention of the learned counsel for the

       petitioners is that a reading of the complaint lodged by


Bail Appl. No.1454/2011                                 Page 1 of 5
        one Gulzar Ahmed, father of the deceased does not show

       that there was any immediate demand of dowry prior to

       the date of the death, by either of the petitioners.

       Therefore, prima facie the ingredients of Section 304B

       IPC are not satisfied.      It was contended that if the

       ingredients of Section 304B IPC prima facie are not

       satisfied,     even the presumption under Section 113B of

       the Evidence Act cannot be drawn.            It was also

       contended that it was a case of suicide committed by the

       deceased on the spur of the moment, as admittedly a

       quarrel had taken place between the deceased and her

       husband and therefore, it is contended that keeping in

       view the aforesaid facts, the petitioners may be enlarged

       on bail and they are prepared to join the investigation.

3.     The learned APP vehemently contested the claim for the

       grant of anticipatory bail. It has been contended by the

       learned APP that in the post mortem report, it has been

       opined that the death of the deceased was on account of

       strangulation because of which the police has converted



Bail Appl. No.1454/2011                               Page 2 of 5
        the offence to one under Section 302/34 IPC. It is also

       alleged that non-bailable warrants were issued against

       the petitioner no.1 while as the petitioner no.2 was

       declared a proclaimed offender.

4.     It was contended that on receipt of the intimation

       regarding          the   death   of   the    deceased,          the

       complainant/father of the deceased along with other

       family members visited the matrimonial home of the

       deceased where everybody including the husband of the

       deceased were found to be absconding which was very

       unnatural conduct on their part.            It has also been

       contended by the learned APP that immediately after the

       marriage, the deceased was subjected to harassment

       and cruelty with a view to demand dowry and other

       pecuniary benefits.        It is alleged that as late as on

       01.7.2011, that is a day prior to the date of the incident,

       the deceased had come to her parents house and

       narrated to her parents that she was being subjected to




Bail Appl. No.1454/2011                                  Page 3 of 5
        cruelty and harassment by her husband and other family

       members.

5.     It has also been contended by the learned APP that it is

       one of the rarest cases wherein after the marriage of the

       deceased, her father had lodged as many as 7 reports

       regarding the beatings being given to the deceased and

       therefore, prayed for rejection of the application.

6.     I have carefully considered the submissions made by the

       respective sides.

7.     Admittedly, the allegations against the petitioners are

       very serious in nature. This is a case of unnatural death

       of the deceased in less than 7 years from the date of her

       marriage.          The deceased was blessed with three children

       from the wedlock. These three children have also been

       rendered without any support from the side of their

       mother as she is no more. The supplementary statement

       of the complainant i.e. the father of the deceased has also

       supported the case of the prosecution that her daughter was

       subjected to cruelty with a view to demand dowry.



Bail Appl. No.1454/2011                                    Page 4 of 5
 8.     Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and the fact

       that the case under Section 304B IPC, has been

       converted into a case under Section 302 IPC and the

       investigations are at the threshold, I feel that the

       investigation will be hampered in case the petitioners are

       extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.          In my view,

       this is a fit case for custodial interrogation of the

       petitioners to verify their role in the incident.

9.     For the aforesaid reasons,      the application for grant of

       anticipatory bail to the petitioners is dismissed.



                                                     V.K. SHALI, J.

NOVEMBER 08, 2011 RN