Mahender Kumar vs The State ( Govt Of Nct Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 8182 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                    Judgment delivered on : October 30, 2015

+     BAIL APPLN. 2195/2015 & Crl.M.A. No.15135/2015 (Exemption)

      MAHENDER KUMAR                                      ..... Petitioner
                          Through       Mr.Sunil Ahuja, Advocate

                          versus

      THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT DELHI)              ..... Respondent
                    Through   Ms.Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
                              Prosecutor for the State with
                              Inspector C.L. Meena & Sub-
                              Inspector Manoj Dahiya, Police
                              Station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.

                                     AND

+     BAIL APPLN. 2343/2015 & Crl.M.A. No.15787/2015 (Exemption)

      MANOJ KUMAR                                         ..... Petitioner
                          Through       Mr.Sunil Ahuja, Advocate

                          versus

      THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT DELHI)              ..... Respondent
                    Through   Ms.Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
                              Prosecutor for the State with
                              Inspector C.L. Meena & Sub-
                              Inspector Manoj Dahiya, Police
                              Station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.

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


Bail Appln. 2195/2015 & 2343/2015                         Page 1 of 8
                                     JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

Crl.M.A. No.15135/2015 (Exemption) in BAIL APPLN. 2195/2015 Crl.M.A. No.15787/2015 (Exemption) in BAIL APPLN. 2343/2015 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

Applications stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 2195/2015 & BAIL APPLN. 2343/2015

1. The petitioners have filed the present bail applications under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for seeking

anticipatory bail in a case registered under FIR No.465/2015 under

Section 306/304B/498A/34 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station

Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.

2. Mr. Sunil Ahuja, counsel for the petitioner contended that

primarily the case of the prosecution is that the aforesaid FIR was

registered on the basis of statement made before the SDM (Punjabi

Bagh) by Subhash Kumar - brother of the deceased Sheela. He stated

that his sister Sheela was married to one Shekhar Chauhan on

08.12.2012. He further stated that at the time of marriage, demand of

Rs.5 lac and one I-10 car in dowry is levelled by Subhash Kumar on

Shekhar, his brothers Manoj and Mahender and their father Durga

Prasad and mother-in-law of Sheela. He alleged that after marriage

also Sheela was harassed and beaten up by Shekhar, Manoj and

Sheela's mother-in-law for dowry. Though the matter was

compromised between the parties with the intervention of five persons

of biradari on 18.03.2014 but after few days the accused persons

again started harassing her for dowry and treating Sheela cruelly with

cruelty both mentally and physically. Allegation regarding non giving

of proper food to Sheela was also levelled. It is also alleged that one

day prior to the date of suicide committed by Sheela, she had told him

that on 19.4.2015, her mother in law, jeth Manoj and Mahender and

her husband Shekhar had tied her hands to outrage her modesty and

ultimately on 25.4.2015 at about 10 am, his sister Sheela committed

suicide. Thereafter, the case was registered on 25.4.2015, against

Shekhar, the petitioners, mother in law and father-in-law of Sheela.

3. The petitioners in this case are 'jeth' Elder brothers of the

husband of the deceased. Counsel for the petitioners contended that

all the three brothers including the petitioners herein maintained

separate residence, and have their own wives and minor children and

the brother of the deceased has falsely implicated the entire family of

the petitioners in this case. It is further contended that the allegations

regarding beating the deceased is negated by the medical evidence, as

no injury was found on the person of the deceased after her death. It is

also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the deceased was

suffering from acute tuberculosis and have also annexed the medical

certificates of the deceased regarding her treatment. It is also

contended that the deceased was suffering from tuberculoses prior to

her marriage and that fact was not disclosed to the family of the

petitioners. As the deceased remained under stress after detection of

the disease, she had shown inclination to stay in the parental home.

Counsel for the petitioners also averred that they have video and

audio recordings of the deceased showing that the deceased had no

grievance against any of the family members of the petitioners and

she insisted to go back to her parental home. It is contended on behalf

of the petitioners that the deceased had committed suicide because of

her ailment and not on account of the fault of husband of the deceased

or any of his family members. Counsel for the petitioner also

contended that the petitioners are having clean antecedents and also

referred the order dated 06.10.2015 passed by this Court whereby the

father of the petitioner - Durga Prasad was ordered to be released on

bail in anticipation of his arrest. It is further contended that the

custodial investigation of the petitioners is not required and no

recovery is to be made from them. It is also contended that the

petitioners are permanent resident of Delhi and there is no likelihood

of their absconding or tampering with the evidence of the prosecution

if they are admitted to anticipatory bail. Counsel for the petitioner, on

instructions, undertook that the petitioners shall join the investigation

as and when required by the police.

4. The petitioners had also moved the bail application before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi which was

dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2015, which is impugned in the

present petition.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi,

rejected the interim bail applications moved by the petitioners, while

observing that the allegations of dowry demand on part of the

applicants and their family members are clear, specific and categorical

as can be seen from perusal of the complaint/FIR and the allegations

were found to be serious in nature, therefore the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, for the purpose of unearthing the truth behind the

allegations, deemed the custodial interrogation of the petitioners

necessary. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found no

consequences in the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Finding no justifiable ground for grant of anticipatory bail, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the applications of the

petitioners.

6. Ms.Manjeet Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor appears for the

State and accepts notice of the petition and submits that the order

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is a well reasoned

order and does not call for any interference by this Hon'ble Court.

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

petitioners/applicants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

the State. After hearing the submissions made by counsel appearing

for both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that the ground of

granting concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, on parity with

their father, is not available, because the father-in-law of the deceased

had been granted concession of pre-arrest bail by this Court, as the

FIR does not disclose if subsequent to the marriage, the father of the

petitioners at any time had subjected the victim with cruelty,

physically or mentally on account of dowry demands. However, all

the allegations in the FIR are against the husband, mother-in-law and

the petitioners herein. The petitioners also cannot claim parity with

the case of their father as the father of the petitioners was aged about

62 years and was confined to bed for the last two years having been

paralysed from his right side.

8. Perusal of the record shows that there are specific, clear and

categorical allegations levelled against the petitioners and the

petitioners have been attributed considerable role in the crime, which

led to the registration of the FIR in question. In the facts and

circumstances of the present case, keeping in view the role attributed

to the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

petitioners do not deserve the grant of concession of pre-arrest bail.

Therefore, the anticipatory bail applications filed by the

applicants/petitioners deserve to be dismissed at this stage.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the bail applications filed by the

applicants/petitioners are dismissed. However, it goes without saying

that any observation made in the aforesaid order shall not affect the

merits of the case.

10. The bail applications as well as pending applications, as filed

by the applicants/petitioners are disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE OCTOBER 30, 2015 pkb