Nimoo Jain vs State Nct Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 1847 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                         Date of decision: April 4, 2014
+       BAIL APPLN. 2204/2013
        NIMOO JAIN                                          ..... Petitioner
                                Through Mr.Jagat Rana with Mr.Akhilesh Arora,
                                Advocates

                                versus

        STATE NCT OF DELHI                   ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Parmod Saxena, APP for Respondent-State Mr.R.P.Luthra, Advocate for complainant

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

VEENA BIRBAL, J

1. This is an application under section 438 of the Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR no.347/2013 u/s 304B/498A/34 IPC, P.S Shahdara,Delhi.

2. Petitioner is aged about 55 years of age and is the mother-in-law of deceased Priyanka Jain. The son of petitioner, namely, Gaurav Jain got married to deceased Priyanka Jain on 4.7.2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. From their marriage, a daughter, namely, Garima was born on 28.5.2012, who after the death of Priyanka is in the custody of present petitioner.

3. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of Shri Arun Jain s/o Sh.Sardar Singh Jain, father of deceased Priyanka Jain to the SDM, Shahdara wherein he has alleged that immediately after marriage his

daughter was harassed and beaten in the matrimonial home. Despite his persuation, there was no change in them. On 23rd January, 2013 when his daughter had come to his house, a demand of money was conveyed through her but the said demand was not fulfilled by him. Due to non fulfilment of demand of money, the deceased was again beaten in her matrimonial home. The father of the deceased has further alleged that one day he had gone to the matrimonial home to meet his deceased daughter. She did not speak to him but had shown injury marks on her hand and her back. When he had enquired from the husband of the deceased about those marks to which he told that she had sustained injuries on account of fall. On hearing the same, his daughter started crying and was not allowed to speak to him. The father of deceased has further alleged that he had given Rs.2.65 lakhs to Sh.Mahendra Jain, uncle of Gaurav Jain and when his daughter asked for the return of the money, she was again given beatings.

4. The aforesaid statement was recorded on 9.9.2013 by the SDM, Shahdara on getting information about death of one woman, namely, Priyanka Jain due to hanging. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR was registered against the present petitioner i.e. mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and brother-in-law of the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that husband of the deceased, Gaurav Jain is already in custody. The father-in-law of deceased, namely, Anil Jain has already surrendered and has been granted regular bail. It is submitted that in the FIR, the present petitioner is not named. It is further submitted that her name was mentioned for the first time in the supplementary statement recorded on 10.9.2013. It is submitted

that the said statement was recorded to fill up gaps in the original complaint on the basis of which, FIR was registered. It is further submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner. Petitioner is looking after the minor daughter of the deceased and there is no one in the family to take care of the said minor child. It is further submitted that petitioner is cooperating in investigation and she may be granted anticipatory bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon (i) Siddharam Satlingappa vs. State of Maharashtra: AIR 2011 SC 312; (ii) Gursharan Kaur vs. State: 2011 2 JCC 826 and (iii) Bhupender @ Gora vs. NCT of Delhi: 112(2004)DLT 948.

6. On the other hand, learned APP has seriously opposed the bail application. It is stated that present is a serious crime. The death is within 2 years and 2 months of marriage. It is submitted that the husband of the deceased and parents-in-law of deceased i.e., the present petitioner and her husband were harassing the deceased for and in connection with demand for dowry and present is not a fit case for bail.

7. I have considered the submissions made. The FIR of present case was registered on the statement of Arun Kumar Jain, father of the deceased on 9.9.2013 to the SDM. There are serious allegations in the FIR about the demands of dowry from the deceased. The mother of deceased has also made statement to the SDM on the aforesaid date i.e. on 9.9.2013 wherein she has alleged that her daughter was given beatings by her husband at the instance of his parents. She has also alleged that on 23 rd January, 2013, their daughter had come to their house and through her, her parents-in-law had demanded money but they could not fulfil their demands and when her daughter returned back to her matrimonial home, she was asked as to why

she had not brought money. She has further alleged that from the said date i.e., from January 23, 2013 till her death, her daughter was not allowed to visit her parental home nor she was allowed to speak to them on telephone. The aforesaid statement is recorded at the same time when the father of deceased had made a statement to the SDM on the basis of which FIR is recorded. The supplementary statement is made by the father of deceased to the SDM on the next date i.e. 10.9.2013. In these circumstances, it can't be contended that allegations are made against petitioner only in the supplementary statement.

8. There are serious allegations against the present petitioner. It may be mentioned that vide order dated 25th November, 2013, petitioner was granted interim protection by this court when learned counsel for the petitioner had made submissions that father-in-law and husband of the deceased had been arrested and petitioner was the only person available in the family to look after the minor daughter of deceased. The interim protection granted continued from time to time. However, on 4.2.2014 while hearing the arguments, it was informed that the father-in-law of deceased had not been arrested. On the said date the matter was adjourned to 7.2.2014. Thereupon, on 7.2.2014, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that father-in-law had surrendered on 6.2.2014.

9. Learned counsel for the complainant is also present who has submitted that wrong submission was made on 25.11.2013 that the father-in- law of deceased had been arrested. It is submitted that the interim protection was given considering that there was no one to look after the child. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was some bonafide mistake in making the submissions on 25.11.2013 about the arrest

of father-in-law and it was not deliberate. In any event, petitioner ought to have brought the true fact about non-arrest of father-in-law of deceased to the notice of the court on subsequent hearings of her bail application which has not been done in the present case.

10. As is noted above, the father-in-law of deceased has now been granted regular bail. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no one to look after the minor child. The brother-in-law of deceased has also been granted bail.

11. Considering the seriousness of allegations and that there are specific allegations against the present petitioner about the demands of dowry and harassment being caused to the deceased for non fulfilment of demands of dowry and that the death is within two years and two months of marriage by hanging, present is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The bail application is rejected.

12. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been considered. The same have no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

VEENA BIRBAL, J

APRIL 04, 2014 ssb