Rajia Begum vs The State
2015 Latest Caselaw 7773 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     BAIL APPLN. 1942/2015
                                  Date of Decision : October 09th, 2015
      RAJIA BEGUM                                             ..... Petitioner
                         Through:       Mr.Aakash Goel, Adv.

                         versus

      THE STATE                                          ..... Respondent
                         Through:       Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP for the State.
                                        Mr.D.L. Dhingra, Adv. for the
                                        complainant.

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

      P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 for the grant of

anticipatory bail in FIR No.113/2015, Police Station Chandni Mahal,

under Sections 302/304-B/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused are that

on 24.04.2015, an information was received in the police station vide

DD No.50B. On receipt of said information, police reached LNJP

Hospital where Ms.Shahin was found under treatment and she was

unfit for statement. There were strangulation marks on the neck of

the victim. SDM of the area was informed who recorded statement of

Smt. Tahira Begum, mother of the victim. In her statement, Smt.

Tahira Begum stated that her daughter Ms.Shahin used to be harassed

and tortured by the accused persons for bringing less dowry and that

the husband of her daughter and in-laws tried to murder her daughter

on 24.04.2015. On the statement of the complainant, FIR was

registered under Section 307/498A/34 IPC.

3. During the course of investigation, Parvez Mirza and Azaz

Mirza, husband and brother-in-law of the victim, respectively, were

arrested whereas the petitioner-herein and another accused Zakiya

Begum absconded. During treatment, the victim expired on

02.05.2015 and penal Section 302 IPC was substituted in place of

Section 307 IPC. Thereafter, Section 304-B IPC was also added in

the present case.

4. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned APP for the State were heard.

5. The grounds taken by the petitioner are that the petitioner is the

sister-in-law (nanad) of the deceased. She got married on 05.04.2002

and since then living separately. The petitioner is having two sons

who are school going. The petitioner never interfered in the

matrimonial life of the deceased. The allegations made are false and

non-specific. On 04.09.2015, the petitioner was given interim

protection by the learned Additional Sessions and thereafter, the

petitioner joined and co-operated in the investigation.

6. On the other hand, learned APP for the State opposed the bail

application on the ground that the petitioner is not cooperating in the

investigation. It is submitted that the custodial interrogation of the

petitioner is required as some call details of the mobile phone used by

the petitioner are yet to be collected apart from the recovery of the

mobile phone.

7. As per the facts of the present case, the petitioner is the sister-

in-law (nanad) of the deceased. It is a matter of record that the

petitioner is a married lady and has been living separately from the

matrimonial house of the deceased. As per the status report filed by

the State, the petitioner has joined the investigation. In this position

of the matter, in the considered opinion of the Court, there is no

necessity of custodial interrogation of the petitioner.

8. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is hereby

ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner/accused Rajia

Begum, she be released on bail on furnishing the personal bond in the

sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the

satisfaction of the arresting officer. The petitioner is directed to join

the investigation as and when required, shall not tamper with the

evidence, shall not influence the prosecution witnesses and shall not

leave the country without prior permission of the Court concerned.

9. The application is disposed of accordingly. However, it is

made clear that the observations made above shall not affect the

merits of the case.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE OCTOBER 09, 2015 dd