Delhi High Court
Sunil @ Salim vs State on 30 October, 2012
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% BAIL APPL. NO. 1278/2012
+ Date of Decision: 30th October, 2012
# SUNIL @ SALIM ....Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Adv.
Versus
$ STATE ...Respondent
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
ORDER
P.K.BHASIN, J:
The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail from this Court after having
failed to succeed before the Sessions Court as he apprehends his arrest
by the police in a case registered against him for his having abetted the
commission of suicide by one Bunti, who according to him now was
his beloved wife. Suicide was committed by the deceased wife of the
petitioner by consuming poison on 17th June, 2012.
The investigating agency has recorded the statements of the
family members of the deceased and they hold the petitioner and his
family members responsible for the commission of suicide by the
deceased Bunti. There are allegations of constant harassment of the
deceased by the petitioner and his family members because of her
having failed to fulfil their greed of dowry. The harassment allegedly
increased for some years before the commission of suicide by the
deceased when she came to know that her husband, the petitioner
herein, was having an extra marital relations with another woman
living his neighbourhood and when she protested to her husband and
requested him not to have any such relationship with another woman
since that would have adverse impact on their growing children but he
did not pay any heed to that protest and request. Then she told the same
thing to his parents also they instead of showing sympathy to her
started beating her. She was told that she should let her husband live
happily. The petitioner also beat her for complaining about his extra
marital affair to his parents and threatened her that if she would spread
that affair further he would kill her and also said that „yaar to aise hi
mauj leinge" and in she will have to live in that scenario only if she
wanted to stay with him. It was claimed by the sister of the deceased at
whose instance FIR was registered that on 16th June, 2012 when her
deceased sister saw the petitioner with the other woman and she
protested to him again and also he had beaten her and told her that "tu
kahin jaa kar mar hamhe khush rehne dey...." .
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-
accused submitted, relying upon orders in Bail Application No.
3137/2005, "Sanjay Dhillon Vs. State" and "Krishna & Ors. Vs.
State"; Bail Application No. 880/2012, "Dr. Mohd. Sohail Fazal Vs.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) passed by different Benches of this
Court in cases of suicide and in which on the facts of those cases this
Court had granted anticipatory bails, had submitted that on the basis of
the allegations which are now being leveled by the family of the
deceased only a case of harassment of the deceased for dowry can at
the most be said to be made out but certainly not of abetment of suicide
by the deceased by the petitioner-husband. So, Mr. Gupta submitted
that this is also a fit case where the petitioner also deserves to be
granted anticipatory bail.
Mr. M.N. Dudeja, learned APP strongly opposed the grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that this is a case of
serious nature and gravity of the offence should not be ignored
particularly at the initial stage of investigation. It was contended that on
the basis of allegations made against the petitioner by the family
members of the deceased no case is made for grant of pre-arrest bail to
him Mr. Dudeja cited one order of the Supreme Court reported as
1987(1) SCC 466 wherein it was observed by the Supreme Court that
in case of unnatural death of a daughter-in-law High Court should not
have granted anticipatory bail.
The order of the Supreme Court relied upon by Mr. Dudeja reads
as under:-
"The widespread belief that dowry deaths are even now treated with some
casualness at all levels seems to be well grounded. The High Court has
granted anticipatory bail in such a matter. We are of the opinion that the
High Court should not have exercised its jurisdiction to release the accused
on anticipatory bail in disregard of the magnitude and seriousness of the
matter. The matter regarding the unnatural death of the daughter-in-law at
the house of her father-in-law was still under investigation and the
appropriate course to adopt was to allow the concerned Magistrate to deal
with the same on the basis of the Material before the Court at the point of
time of their arrest in case they were arrested. It was neither prudent nor
proper for the High Court to have granted anticipatory bail which order
was very likely to occasion prejudice by its very nature and timing. We
therefore consider it essential to sound a serious note of caution for future.
The High Court is under no compulsion to exercise its jurisdiction to grant
anticipatory bail in a matter of this nature. So far as the present matter is
concerned, since it has become infructuous, we do not propose to pass any
order. subject to these observations, the appeal is dismissed."
Considering the gravity of the crime being investigated by the
police, allegations leveled against the petitioner-husband and the
aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court whereby a serious note of
caution was sounded for the Courts, this Court is of the firm view that
the petitioner does not deserve to granted the relief of pre-arrest bail.
Whatever allegations are there at present against the petitioner-husband
they are sufficient to deny the relief of pre-arrest bail to him. And just
because this Court had granted anticipatory bail to some accused in
other cases this Court is not bound to give the same relief to this
accused also. Bail orders do not constitute binding precedents and the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner also did not claim it to be so.
This anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
P.K.BHASIN, J
October 30, 2012
