Laxmi Jain vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 7189 Del

$-27

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       BAIL APPLN. 1967/2015

                          Date of Decision : September 21st, 2015

        LAXMI JAIN                                    ..... Petitioner

                                   Through:   Mr.B.S. Rana, Adv.

                          versus

        STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                       ..... Respondent

                                Through:      Mr.Ashish Dutta, APP
                                              for the State.


CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

P.S.TEJI, J.

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

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 for the grant of

bail in FIR No.558/2014, Police Station-South Rohini, under Sections

498A, 304B, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860.

2. The facts in brief are that the police found the dead body of

deceased Neha Jain lying outside her matrimonial home on

17.07.2014. One red colour chunni was found tied around the neck of

the deceased. The dead body was sent to hospital for preservation.

The SDM recorded statement of Smt. Mithilesh Jain, mother of the

deceased in which she stated that her deceased daughter was married

with co-accused Ashish Jain and the deceased was tortured and

harassed by her husband and his relatives for or in connection with

demand of dowry. She raised suspicion that her daughter was killed

by the accused persons.

3. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, FIR in the

present case was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was

filed in the Court.

4. The argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that

the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased and is in custody

since 16.09.2014. Father-in-law and Jeth of the deceased have

already been granted bail vide order dated 23.02.2015. Evidence of

all the family members of the deceased have already been recorded

and as such there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence.

There are no allegations of subjecting the deceased to cruelty or

harassment on account of dowry soon before the death of the

deceased. It is further argued that the petitioner/accused is an old

aged lady and is in custody since long.

5. The bail application has been opposed by the learned APP for

the State. It is argued that apart from allegations of dowry death, the

complainant has also raised suspicion that the accused persons

committed the murder of the deceased and that is why, the Trial Court

framed charge under Section 302 IPC in alternative to charge under

Section 498A/304B/34 IPC. It is further submitted that the petitioner

does not deserve the concession of bail in view of the seriousness of

the offence.

6. Perusal of record shows that the charge sheet has already been

filed in the present case and trial has commenced. The charge under

Section 498A/304B/34 IPC and in alternative charge under Section

302 IPC has been framed against the petitioner/accused and co-

accused persons. It has been submitted that all the family members of

the deceased have already been examined.

7. It is matter of record that the petitioner/accused is the mother-

in-law of the deceased. She is an old aged lady who is in

incarceration since 16.09.2014. Almost one year has passed since

when the petitioner is in custody and the fact remains that three co-

accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. Since all the

material witnesses have already been examined, there is no likelihood

of tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses by the

petitioner/accused. The bail is claimed purely on the ground that the

petitioner is an old lady and behind the bars for the last about one

year.

8. In the facts and circumstances, keeping in view the old

age of the petitioner and being behind the bars for about a year, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the application filed deserves

to be allowed. It is hereby ordered that petitioner/accused be released

on bail on furnishing the personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with

one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The petitioner is directed to furnish her current address and contact

details and she shall not change the address or change the contact

number without prior permission of the Trial Court. The petitioner is

directed to appear on each and every date to be fixed by the Trial

Court, shall not approach the witnesses and shall not leave the country

without prior permission of the Trial Court.

9. However, it is made clear that the observations made above

shall not affect the merits of the case.

P.S.TEJI, J

SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 dd