Delhi High Court
Shivendra Tyagi vs State Of Delhi on 9 October, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 9th October, 2015
+ BAIL APPLN. 2161/2015
SHIVENDRA TYAGI ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Anupam S Sharma and
Ms.Parul Rohatagi, Advs.
versus
STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,
APP State with SI Vijay
Mann, PS Burari, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A. No.14939/2015(for delay in re-filing)
In view of the averments made in the application, the delay of 18
days in refiling the instant petition is condoned.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
Crl. M.A. No.14938/2015 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
BAIL APPLN. 2161/2015
1. Vide the present petition under Section 439 Cr P C, petitioner seeks
a direction for releasing him on bail in case FIR No.2/2012 registered at
Police Station Burari, Delhi for the offences punishable under Section
498A/304B/34 of the IPC.
2. The petitioner is husband of deceased Poonam Tyagi and
allegations against him that on 01.01.2012, complainant Mewa Ram,
father-in-law of petitioner got recoded his statement to the SDM - Civil
Lines, Delhi wherein he alleged that his daughter Poonam Tyagi (since
deceased) was married to petitioner - Shivendra Tyagi on 29.04.2009.
No demand of dowry was made by the groom side, but all the necessary
household articles including the jewellery and motorcycle were allegedly
given in the marriage. After the marriage, there used to be normal quarrels
in the family between the deceased and her jethani - Laxmi as well as
nanand - Kavita. The petitioner allegedly used to beat the deceased when
quarrel took place between them. On 01.01.2012, the complainant was
informed that his daughter had fallen from the roof while spreading the
cloths. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. Accordingly, complainant
Mewa Ram made complaint, which culminated into the aforenoted FIR.
In the complaint, complainant has suspected that his daughter had been
murdered.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that
there is no evidence whatsoever against the petitioner in this case to make
out a case under Section 304B of the IPC in as much as when the
complainant specifically stated that at the time of marriage there was no
demand of dowry. Therefore, there was no occasion to demand dowry
after marriage and there was no such harassment at the ends of in-laws.
Consequently, there was no occasion for the deceased to commit suicide.
However, the deceased died due to accident as noted above.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that father of deceased /
complainant PW3 Mewa Ram deposed that marriage of deceased with
petitioner had taken place almost three years prior to the incident. There
was no complaint ever made against the petitioner and his family
members with regard to the dowry demand or any cruelty. Moreover,
PW3 Mewa Ram and PW6 Shakuntala-parents of deceased have admitted
during their cross-examinations that the dispute between the parties was
with regard to the distribution of the property of father of petitioner
between him and his brothers and that deceased used to say that she will
commit suicide for said reason.
5. It is also admitted by PW3 and PW6 that there was love and
affection between the petitioner and their deceased daughter and even the
letters depict the love and affection between the deceased and petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits without prejudice that the
deceased had left behind her son namely Pihu, now aged 5 years. The
child has been rendered destitute as there is no one after the death of
deceased-Poonam as father/petitioner is in custody. It has already come
in the evidence that the terms of the petitioner with his father and other
family members were not cordial as there was dispute between them
regarding their share in the property of father of petitioner.
7. In addition to above, co-accused Kavita and Laxmi, the allegations
against whom are similar to the petitioner, have already been enlarged on
bail. The petitioner is in custody since 03.01.2012, therefore, has already
completed more than 3½ years.
8. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has strongly opposed
the present application and submitted that till date, 12 PWs have been
examined out of 23 witnesses and trial is at fag end; all material witnesses
have been examined - who have fully supported the prosecution case.
Therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of allegations against
petitioner, the present application may not be allowed at this stage.
9. Keeping in view the fact recorded above, the fact cannot be lost
sight that there is no previous complaint against the petitioner of any
nature, co-accused are already enlarged on bail; petitioner is in custody
for more than 3½ years; all material witnesses have already been
examined. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case, I
am of the view that petitioner is entitled for bail in this case.
10. Accordingly, petitioner shall be released from custody on his
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. It is also directed
that in case of any change of address of petitioner or surety, the same shall
be communicated to the jail authorities, learned Trial Court as well as IO/
SHO concerned.
11. In above terms, instant petition is allowed and disposed of.
12. Before parting with this order it is made clear that the observation
made by this Court herein shall have no bearing on the merits of the case
of either side pending trial before learned Trial Court.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 09, 2015
M
