Delhi High Court
Saurav Kumar Garg vs State on 14 March, 2014
Author: Veena Birbal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: March 14, 2014
+ BAIL APPLN. 592/2014
SAURAV KUMAR GARG ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pramod Saxena, APP.
Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Adv. for complainant.
Insp Arunender Singh, P.S. Adarsh Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J.
CRL.M.A.4383/2014 (exemption)
Exemption as prayed for is allowed, subject to just exceptions.
BAIL APPLN. 592/2014
1. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of
petitioner-Saurav Kumar Garg i.e., brother in law (Devar) of the
deceased Pooja Garg. Petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in respect of
FIR no.95/2014 u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC P.S.Adarsh Nagar. In the
aforesaid FIR, there are three more accused persons namely Sandeep
Garg, Mr.Surinder Garg and Smt.Padma Garg being husband, father-
in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively.
2. The marriage of the deceased with Sandeep Garg was solemnised
on 22nd February, 2009. There are two children born from the wedlock of
the parties. As per the case of the prosecution, deceased had died
unnatural death i.e., by burns on 8th February, 2014. On 8th February,
2014, DD no.8A was received at Police Station Adarsh Nagar. When SI
Sandeep Kumar reached the spot i.e., C-7/3, New Cottage Road, Adarsh
Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi, he came to know that deceased i.e., Pooja Garg
w/o Sandeep Garg had been taken to the hospital. On reaching there he
came to know that deceased had got 99% superficial to deep burns and
she was declared brought dead. The FIR was registered by the police on
the basis of statements of parents and brother of the deceased to the
S.D.M.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are no
allegations against the present petitioner that he had harassed the
deceased for or in connection with any demand of dowry. It is
contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present
case. It is submitted that the matrimonial home of the deceased was
consisting of three floors. The deceased was living at the second floor
while the present petitioner along with his wife was living at the third
floor of the said house. There are no allegations in the statements of
parents and brother of the deceased on the basis of which FIR has been
registered that the present petitioner had harassed her for or in
connection with demand of dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that ingredients of section 304B IPC have not been made
out against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
husband and mother-in-law of the deceased have already been arrested
and they are in judicial custody. Learned counsel further submits that
the after the alleged incident, the parents of the deceased had taken the
children of the deceased but later on they had left them in the office of
DCP and since then the children of deceased are living in "Palna". It is
submitted that petitioner has to take care of children of the deceased also.
5. On the other hand, learned APP has argued that offence is serious
and petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
6. I have considered the submissions made and gone through the
material on record.
7. Mr.Suresh Goyal , father of the deceased has made statement to
the SDM wherein he has alleged that immediately after marriage,
husband and mother-in-law of the deceased used to beat his daughter and
harassed her for dowry and the same continued and for the past one year
deceased was not allowed to visit her parental home nor she was even
allowed to speak to them over phone. He had alleged that all it was done
for getting more dowry as Sandeep was not doing any work.
8. The brother of the deceased, namely, Ravi Goyal, has also made
statement to the SDM wherein he has alleged that soon after the
marriage his sister i.e., deceased was being harassed and tortured in
connection with demand of dowry. He has further alleged that after the
birth of his son, he along with his wife had gone to the matrimonial home
of the deceased, they were teased by her in-laws and Dewar i.e., the
present petitioner and were not allowed to enter the house and meet the
deceased. He has further alleged that for the past one year and three
months whenever he had gone to the house of the deceased with some
articles on account of festivals, parents-in-law of the deceased used to say
that we had insulted them and used to tell the deceased to get money
from her parents. He has further alleged that they had also beaten the
deceased in his presence.
9. The mother of the deceased has also made statement to the SDM
wherein she has alleged that husband of the deceased as well as parents-
in-law of the deceased used to torture their daughter for demand of dowry
and were giving beatings to her every day and after the birth of the
daughter to the deceased, they started troubling her more. The husband
and his parents were demanding jewellery from them and they were not
allowed to even visit them.
10. The main allegations in the FIR are against the parents of the
deceased and husband of the deceased. The parents of the deceased have
alleged that deceased was tortured and harassed in connection with
demand of dowry by her husband and parents-in-law. They have not
made any allegation of harassment against the brother-in-law of the
deceased i.e., present petitioner to the deceased for or in connection with
demand of dowry. The brother of the deceased has also made main
allegations against the husband and parents in law of the deceased
alleging therein that they used to ask the deceased to bring dowry and
used to beat her on regular basis and they demanded gold jewellery from
her. The allegations made by the brother of the deceased against the
petitioner is that when he and his wife had gone to the matrimonial home
of the deceased on the occasion of birth of his son with certain articles,
then parents in law and brother in law of the deceased had passed
taunting remarks.
11. Considering the submissions made, it is ordered that in the event of
arrest of the petitioner-Saurav Kumar Garg, he shall be released on
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/Arresting Officer. He shall
join the investigation as and when called by the IO.
It is clarified that observations made in the order are only with
regard to the consideration of anticipatory bail application of petitioner
and will have no bearing on the trial of the case.
Application stands disposed of.
VEENA BIRBAL, J
MARCH 14, 2014
ssb
