Nathu Ram vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 8518 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                      Judgment delivered on : November 17, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 2234/2015
      NATHU RAM                                         ..... Petitioner
                            Through:   Mr.Raj Kumar and Mr.Vinod Charan,
                                       Advocates.
                            versus

      STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)               ..... Respondent
                    Through: Mr. Ashish Dutta, Additional Public
                             Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
                             Inspector Ajay Kumar, PS Dabri.

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

                                     JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present bail application under

Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 for seeking bail in a case registered under FIR No.641/2015

under Section 302/304-B/306/34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station

Dabri, Delhi.

2. The facts as stated by the Srichand Gupta, the father of the

deceased Renu which led to registration of the FIR are that the

marriage of his daughter was solemnised in the year 2008 with

Yogesh Gupta with the consent of both parties, as per Hindu rites and

ceremonies. It is alleged that on 31.7.2014 at about 5 PM, Yogesh, the

husband of deceased - Renu called the complainant stating that Renu

is not well and they are taking her to Safdarjang Hospital and when

the complainant reached at Hospital the doctors told that Renu had

expired. It is further alleged that when the father of deceased asked

from Yogesh and his family members about his health, then they

informed that Renu was ill from 7-8 days. It is further alleged that on

asking from the father-in-law of deceased - Renu, as to whether any

treatment was provided to Renu, and asked to show the treatment

papers, if any, then the petitioner flared and stated that he had not

given her treatment and do what you want to do. It is also alleged that

the health of the Renu was not well and the parents-in-law have not

taken due care of Renu and dragged her in the situation where she

died in suffocation.

3. Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner

and submits that the FIR of the case was registered on the statement

of father of the deceased and even as per statement of the

complainant, the deceased Renu never complained about her parents-

in-law. It is also contended that there has never been any complaint of

any quarrel by the deceased or her parents, in six years of marriage

between the deceased and her husband.

4. It is further contended that there is no explanation of delay in

registering the FIR of about 11 months, after date of taking the

statement of the father of the deceased. Also, there is no specific

averment against the petitioner that he had demanded dowry soon

before the death of the deceased.

5. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the police has not

inquired from the Safdarjung Hospital whether deceased was alive or

brought dead and no document of treatment of deceased during the

procedure of saving her life was collected from the hospital.

6. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioner that the case

of the petitioner is on the same footing as of the other accused

persons, who have been granted bail by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge. It is informed that the investigation of the case is

complete and the charge sheet has been filed in the case.

7. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of tampering

with the prosecution evidence by the petitioner as all the witnesses are

the family members of the deceased and police officers. It is also

contended on behalf of the petitioner that the alleged incident is

natural and not committed due to any external reasons, and even no

injury was found on the body of the deceased.

8. At last, counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is

aged about 70 years and has deep roots in the society and is a

permanent resident of Delhi, therefore, there is no possibility of

fleeing away from the trial. The petitioner is stated to be falsely

implicated in the case and in judicial custody since the date of arrest,

i.e., 20.05.2015. It is further submitted that the trial of the case will

take time, therefore, the petitioner ought to be granted bail in the

aforesaid case.

9. Mr. Ashish Dutta, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised by counsel for

the petitioner.

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

petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

11. After hearing the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, this court is of

the opinion that the case of the petitioner cannot be put at par with

other co-accused who have already been granted bail, as according to

the post mortem report, death of deceased is homicidal in nature and

due to cardiac arrest on account of assault given on her chest. This

court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner happens to be the

father-in-law of the deceased, who alleged to have been responsible

for the dowry death due to the bodily injury due to cardiac arrest on

account of assault given on her chest and alternatively the petitioner

has been charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 of

IPC. Since the trial is at initial stage and the tampering of the evidence

cannot be ruled out, therefore, this court is of the considered opinion

that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail in this case,

at this stage.

12. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed.

However, it goes without saying that any observation made in the

aforesaid order shall not affect the merits of the case.

13. With aforesaid directions, the present application is disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE NOVEMBER 17, 2015 pkb