Delhi High Court
Kamal Kumar vs State on 3 August, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN.1502/2016
Date of Decision : August 03rd, 2016
KAMAL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Mr. Kshitij
Mittal, Mr. Anshul Mittal, Mr.
Sushant Bali, Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with Inspector
Tej Ram Meena
Mr. Mohit Singh, Advocate for the
complainant
AND
+ BAIL APPLN. 1503/2016
ANSU RANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Mr. Kshitij
Mittal, Mr. Anshul Mittal, Mr.
Sushant Bali, Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with Inspector
Tej Ram Meena
Bail Appln. 1502-1503/2016 Page 1 of 5
Mr. Mohit Singh, Advocate for the
complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present applications have been filed by the petitioners,
under Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the grant of
anticipatory bail in FIR No.477/2016, under Sections 498-A/304-
B/34 IPC, Police Station Bhajan Pura.
2. As per FIR, the complainant Narender Singh made a
statement before the SDM that he married his daughter Meenakshi
to Sachin according to Hindu rites and ceremonies about five years
back. In the God Bharai ceremony, he gave Rs.2100/- per person
to 65 person. The marriage ceremony was to be performed in Jeet
Farmhouse in which Rs.6 lacs were spent. Before marriage, the in-
laws had taken three gold rings, three gold chain and Rs.16 lacs for
buying a car. He spent Rs.40,000/- in the milai. Meenakshi told
the wife of the complainant that her husband Sachin used to bring
other girls in the house but they told Meenakshi to manage the
things. He further stated that Sachin, his mother, bhabhi (sister-in-
law) and nanad (sister-in-law) used to harass Meenakshi and they
also used to beat her. When the complainant's daughter gave birth
to a son, a sum of Rs.8 lacs was demanded from the complainant to
buy a car. On 30.06.2016, accused Sachin informed Arun, son of
the complainant that Meenakshi died by hanging herself.
3. After completing the formalities, the FIR of the present case
was registered.
4. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State were heard.
5. On behalf of petitioner Kamal Kumar, it has been argued
that he is the brother-in-law (nandoi) of the deceased and he never
interfered in the matrimonial affairs of the deceased. After some
time of marriage, the deceased started behaving in strange and
abnormal manner at her matrimonial home and was totally
disrespectful towards her husband and his parents. The deceased
never mixed up with the family members. The deceased was
undergoing treatment for depression at IHBAS for a long time. It
was further argued that the name of the petitioner does not figure
in the FIR and he has been made an accused without any material.
6. On behalf of petitioner Ansu Rani, it has been argued that
she is the sister-in-law (nanad) of the deceased and she used to
meet her bother and deceased occasionally. It was further argued
that she is a teacher in a Government school. She is having a
daughter of 14 years while her son is 8 years old. It was further
submitted that the allegations leveled in the FIR are bald and
without any basis.
7. On the other hand, learned APP for the State opposed the
bail of the petitioners on the ground that there are specific
allegations against both the petitioners regarding harassment and
cruelty meted out to the deceased. Though the name of accused
Kamal Kumar does not figure in the FIR, but in the statements of
the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the role of
accused Kamal Kumar has cropped up. It is further argued that the
deceased was harassed, tortured and beaten up by the accused
persons which compelled the deceased to end her life. The
allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious in nature and
they do not deserve the concession of bail.
8. Perusal of FIR shows that the name of petitioner Kamal
Kumar who is the nandoi (brother-in-law) of the deceased does not
figure in the entire FIR. There is no allegation against accused
Kamal Kumar in the FIR that he ever harassed or tortured the
deceased on account of demand of dowry. The allegations against
him have alleged to have been leveled in the subsequent statements
of witnesses. In the absence of any specific allegation in the FIR,
makes the accused Kamal Kumar entitled for bail.
9. So far accused Ansu Rani is concerned, there are specific
allegations in the FIR that she along with other co-accused persons
used to harass and torture the deceased on account of demand of
dowry. It is specifically stated by the complainant in his statement
which made the basis for the registration of FIR that elder nanad
i.e. accused Ansu Rani along with husband, mother-in-law of the
deceased and bhabhi (sister-in-law) of the husband used to harass
the deceased and even beat her.
10. The role of accused Ansu Rani in harassing and beating the
deceased has specifically been mentioned in the FIR which
disentitles her for bail.
11. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the
bail application of petitioner Kamal Kumar is allowed and it is
ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Kamal Kumar,
he be released on bail on furnishing the personal bond in the sum
of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the arresting officer. However, the petitioner is directed to join
the investigation as and when required. He is directed not to
tamper with the evidence and influence the prosecution witnesses.
He is further directed not to leave the country without prior
permission of the Court concerned.
12. The bail application of the petitioner Ansu Rani is dismissed
keeping in view the specific allegations leveled against her.
13. Both the bail applications are disposed of accordingly.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 03, 2016
dd
