Shivani Choudhary vs State
2015 Latest Caselaw 9527 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                    Judgment delivered on : December 22, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 2706/2015
      SHIVANI CHOUDHARY                                     ..... Petitioner
                          Through:        Mr.Jatan Singh, Ms.Sakshi Sachdeva,
                                          Advocates.

                          versus

      STATE                                                   ..... Respondent
                          Through:        Mr. G.M. Farooqui, Additional Public
                                          Prosecutor for the State with
                                          Inspector Ghanshyam, Police Station
                                          North Rohini, Delhi.

+     BAIL APPLN. 2710/2015
      NIKHIL CHOUDHARY                                      ..... Petitioner
                          Through:        Mr.Jatan Singh, Ms.Sakshi Sachdeva,
                                          Advocates.

                          versus

      STATE                                                   ..... Respondent
                          Through:        Mr. G.M. Farooqui, Additional Public
                                          Prosecutor for the State with
                                          Inspector Ghanshyam, Police Station
                                          North Rohini, Delhi.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                      JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2015, passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge (NW), Rohini Courts, Delhi, the petitioners

have preferred the present bail applications under Section 438 of Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C.),

seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 811/2015 under Section

498A/304-B/34 of IPC registered at Police Station North Rohini,

Delhi.

2. Since the present bail applications arise out of common FIR and

impugns the common order, therefore both these applications are

heard together and are being disposed of together.

3. The present case is registered at the complaint of Mr. Raj

Singh, who is father of Komal (now deceased). According to the

complainant, the marriage of his elder daughter Komal was

solemnised with Ashwini on 19.01.2014 as per Hindu Rites and

Rituals and he had spent Rs.30-32 lacs in the marriage, which

included a Hyndai Verna Car, 25 Tolas Gold and Rs.6 lacs cash for

household goods. It is alleged by the complainant that after a few days

of marriage, husband and parents-in-laws of Komal used to beat her

and demanded Rs.10 lacs from him, for which they regularly harassed

his daughter. It is further alleged by the complainant that on

23.10.2015, her daughter called him and told him that her husband,

mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law are beating her and in

case she does not bring dowry, they will hang her. Thereupon,

complainant made his daughter understand by stating that he will

come next day, in evening and according to the complainant, on

24.10.2015, at around 12-12.30 pm, he received a call from Police

Station that his daughter has hanged herself. Complainant has raised

doubt of his daughter been hanged forcibly by her husband Ashwini,

mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law and requested for

taking an appropriate legal action against them.

4. The case was registered, investigation was started and during

investigation, a suicide note written by the deceased was recovered

from the place of incident. Crime team was also called at spot for

inspection of the scene of crime. The dead body of the deceased was

preserved at mortuary of Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi. Since the

matter being death within seven years of marriage, SDM Saraswati

Vihar was intimated, who recorded the statement of parents of

deceased. Parents of deceased gave statement that before marriage no

demand of dowry was made by husband and in-laws of deceased but

after marriage husband and in-laws of deceased started manhandling

their daughter on pretext of dowry demand. It is also stated that on

23.10.2015, the deceased Smt. Komal made a call to her father telling

him that her husband and in-laws were assaulting her and threatening

her that they will hang her if she does not give them Rs.10 lacs, upon

which her father told that he would come on 24.10.2015.

5. During the course of investigation, autopsy of the deceased was

conducted at Dr. BSA Hospital on 25.10.2015 and viscera of deceased

was preserved by doctor and sent to FSL for opinion and analysis.

The cause of death of deceased was opined by doctor on Post Motem

No. 691/15 as "death is due to asphyxia consequent upon ante-

mortem hanging.''

6. State has filed its status report stating that after registration of

the case, all the family members have been absconding from their

place of residence and when raids were conducted at their residence,

the house was found to be locked. It is further submitted by the State

that CDRs of mobile phones of accused persons have been obtained

and have been analysed but their whereabouts could not be traced till

now.

7. Mr. Jatan Singh, counsel, though argued on behalf of both the

petitioners, but for the purpose of the scrutiny of the case, the same

are being considered separately. Let us first take up the case of

petitioner - Shivani (Bail Appl. No.2706/2015). While arguing on

behalf of the petitioner Shivani, Mr. Jatan Singh, contended that she is

a qualified girl, having a M.Tech degree and presently working at SB

Global School, Meerut Road, Sonepat, Haryana. It is further

contended that the petitioner - Shivani leaves home at 7.30 in the

morning and comes back home at 5.30 in the evening and on the date

of incident, at the relevant time, the petitioner - Shivani was at school

and driver of her bus namely Anand Singh, has also sworn an

affidavit to this effect. It is also contended that the petitioner - Shivani

lives at the first floor of the property No.134, Pocket A-2, Sector 8,

Rohini, Delhi alongwith her parents and the deceased and her husband

lived on the third floor of the same property and had minimum

interaction with them. It is further contended that due to being

occupied in her own personal and professional life, she had no

interference in the matrimonial life of her brother and sister-in-law

and her name has been implicated by the complainant only to exert

pressure upon the family members of the petitioners. It is further

argued that the present FIR is the fabrication of the unscrupulous

mind of the complainant who is acting in connivance with his family

members and the local police and has fabricated the entire chain of

events to implicate the entire family of the petitioner and send them

behind bars. Counsel has also drawn attention of the Court towards

allegation of the complainant that he had given Hyundai Verna car to

the in-laws of the deceased at the time of her marriage, but the fact

was that the same was purchased by the complainant on 30.12.2013

on installments while the marriage was performed only on

19.01.2014, which alone establishes the falsity of allegations levelled

by the complainant against the in-laws of the deceased. Counsel for

the petitioner further contended that since the date of marriage and till

the date of unfortunate incident, even a single complaint was not

made by the deceased or her family members against her in-laws

alleging dowry harassment and cruelty.

8. While controverting the suicide note, recovered by the

investigating agency, from the place of incident, it is argued that the

same completely exonerates all the family members from the

allegations levelled by the complainant and the said suicide letter

nowhere mentions that the deceased was being harassed by her in-

laws for dowry or that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment.

The said suicide note does not mention even the name of the

petitioners. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner - Shivani

that she is an unmarried lady and till date has never been found guilty

of violating the law and grave prejudice shall be caused to the

petitioner - Shivani if she is sent behind bars in the company of

hardened criminals and the same would have daunting effect on her

psychological and future prospects. Counsel for the petitioner further

contended that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner -

Shivani or at her instance, therefore she is not at all required for the

purpose of custodial interrogation, therefore the petitioner - Shivani

sought grant of anticipatory bail in this case.

9. Counsel for the petitioner - Shivani also undertook that the

petitioner - Shivani is ready to join the investigation and shall extend

full cooperation to the investigation and shall appear before the Court

as well as Investigating Officer as and when called.

10. Now let the case of petitioner - Nikhil Choudhary (Bail Appln.

No. 2710/2015), who is also represented through Mr. Jatan Singh,

Advocate, be discussed. After perusing the bail application of

petitioner - Nikhil Choudhary , this Court finds that both the

applications arise out of common FIR and the contents and grounds

taken by counsel for the petitioner in both the applications are similar

and what distinguishing factor of the petitioner - Nikhil Choudhary

as contended by counsel is that petitioner - Nikhil Choudhary is

employed as a System Engineer at Infosys since 01.12.2014 and after

his initial training at Mysore, he is posted in Pune and petitioner -

Nikhil Choudhary is not living at his parental house since

01.12.2014. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has

also annexed a document showing the employment of petitioner -

Nikhil Choudhary at Infosys at Pune.

11. While arguing the case of petitioner - Nikhil Choudhary ,

counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner - Nikhil

Choudhary was not even present at the said place of incident at the

relevant time and he was also not one of the persons who gave

beatings to the deceased on 23.10.2015. At last, it is contended on

behalf of both the petitioners that impulsiveness, dispersion,

frustration, anger or even undue or hypersensitivity of the deceased

Komal could have actuated the thought of suicide and if it led to the

deceased taking her own life, then the blame cannot be thrown at any

other person, even if he/she is in adversary. It is also contended on

behalf of the petitioner - Nikhil Choudhary that there is no mention

of his name in the suicide note recovered at the place of incident,

which however, exonerates all the family members from the

allegations levelled by the complainant.

12. Lastly, it is contended on behalf of petitioner - Nikhil

Choudhary that the petitioner - Nikhil Choudhary is a 24 years old

boy and is a well educated, qualified person and his antecedents are

clear. Counsel for the petitioner further undertook that the petitioner -

Nikhil Choudhary shall remain present before the Investigating

Officer as and when required and since no recovery is to be effected

from petitioner - Nikhil Choudhary at his instance, therefore there is

no need for his custodial interrogation.

13. Mr. G.M. Farooqui, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the

petitioners and submitted that the marriage of deceased did not last

even for two years and there are specific allegations of demand of

Rs.10 lacs as dowry and inflicting of cruelties upon the deceased, in

the present FIR /complaint. It is further submitted that the case is very

serious in nature and the custodial interrogation of these petitioners is

necessary, especially when both the petitioners are absconding from

arrest therefore, the bail applications of the petitioners be rejected.

14. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioners and have gone through the status report, impugned order

and the material placed on record.

15. Upon careful scrutiny of the case what this Court observes is

that there are specific allegations of demand of Rs.10 lacs as dowry

and inflicting of cruelties upon the deceased in the present FIR, also

that all the family members are absconding and the victim died an

unnatural death and the cause of death opined by the doctor, who

conducted the Post Mortem is due to asphyxia consequent upon ante-

mortem hanging. This Court also notes the observation regarding

suicide note made by learned Additional Sessions Judge in impugned

order dated 09.12.2015, which read as under:

"The suicide note on police file does not exonerate these two applicants. Though it does not name these applicants anywhere, but the very opening lines of suicide note are that the deceased was extremely harassed."

16. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the present

case and the contents of the FIR, this Court is not inclined to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioner - Shivani at this stage, especially

when there is no arrest in this case and all the family members are

absconding. Accordingly, the bail application (Bail Appln.

No.2706/2015) filed by petitioner - Shivani is dismissed.

17. So far as the Bail Appln No.2710/2015, filed by petitioner -

Nikhil Choudhary is concerned, the only ground which distinguishes

the case of petitioner - Nikhil Choudhary from the case of petitioner

- Shivani is that he is working as a System Engineer at Infosys since

1st December 2014 and after his initial training at Mysore, he is posted

in Pune and he is not living at his parental house since 1st December

2014 and in support thereof he has annexed the appointment letter

dated 13th November 2014 issued by the Infosys Limited, duly signed

digitally with the address as 44, Infosys Avenue, Electronics City,

Hosur Road, Bangalore 560 100, India. In such a situation, where

there is hardly any possibility of petitioner - Nikhil Choudhary being

present at the time and place of incident, this Court finds some merit

in the contentions raised in his petition. Therefore, in the peculiar fact

and circumstances of the case of the petitioner - Nikhil Choudhary ,

this Court finds that his case is fit to grant anticipatory bail.

18. Accordingly, petitioner - Nikhil Choudhary is directed to

appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called and to

cooperate in investigation of this case and in the event of arrest, the

petitioner - Nikhil Choudhary be released on bail upon furnishing his

personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of the

like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, subject to the

following conditions:

a) The petitioner shall not flee from justice and shall not

leave the country without the prior permission of the

Court concerned.

b) The petitioner shall not try to influence or threaten or

even contact any prosecution witness in any manner.

19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the bail application of

petitioner - Shivani Choudhary (Bail Appln. No.2706/2015) is

dismissed and the bail application of petitioner - Nikhil Choudhary

(Bail Appln. No.2710/2015) is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

20. Before parting with the aforesaid order, it is made clear that

anything observed in this order shall not have any bearing on the

merits of the case during trial.

21. With aforesaid directions, both the bail applications stand

disposed of.

22. Dasti.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 22, 2015 pkb