Delhi High Court
Sandeep vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 7 January, 2016
Author: Siddharth Mridul
18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 07th January, 2016
BAIL APPLN. 30/2016 & CRL.M.A. 187/2016
SANDEEP ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Sunil Satyarthi, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr M.S.Oberoi, APP with SI Kuldeep
Singh, PS- Swaroop Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is an application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in FIR No.337/2014 under
Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC registered at Police Station- Swaroop Nagar,
New Delhi.
2. The applicant is stated to be in custody since 20.07.2014.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the family
members of the deceased victim have been examined and discharged by the
trial court. It is an admitted position, however, that all the public witnesses
are yet to be examined.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has invited my attention
to the order dated 12.10.2015 in Bail Appln. No.1685/2015 wherein this
court was pleased to enlarge the father-in-law of the deceased victim on
regular bail, to urge that the applicant herein, who is the husband of the
deceased victim, is similarly placed and, therefore, entitled to parity.
5. On the contrary, it has been urged on behalf of Mr M.S.Oberoi,
learned APP appearing on behalf of the police, that present is a serious case
and there are specific allegations against the applicant. The applicant who is
the husband of the deceased victim administered some poisonous substance
to the latter within three months of marriage owing to which she died on
20.07.2014. It is, therefore, urged that keeping in mind the seriousness of the
offence and the severity of the punishment that conviction would entail, the
applicant be not released on regular bail.
6. It is not in dispute that the deceased victim died on 20.07.2014 as a
consequence of having consumed Salfas tablets. This fact has already been
confirmed by the report of the FSL dated 06.01.2015.
7. A perusal of the depositions of the father, mother, brother and sister of
the deceased victim as recorded before the trial court and as recorded by the
concerned SDM on 21.07.2014, a day after the unfortunate demise of the
applicant's wife by poison, reveals a litany of persistent and relentless
demands for dowry. The demands for dowry started right from the time of
the marriage itself solemnized on 19.04.2014 and continued unabated for a
period of three months thereafter, till the time the life of a young woman was
lost on account of consumption of a poisonous substance.
8. There is no gainsaying the circumstance that the deceased victim died
an unnatural death within three months of her marriage.
9. Although, it would not be appropriate to comment on the testimony of
the witnesses examined at the trial, it would be suffice to observe that the
clear and unambiguous testimony of the parents of the deceased victim as
well as her siblings prima facie points to the guilt of the applicant qua the
offence for which he has been charged. It is further observed that the
testimony of the said witnesses seems to be unimpeached in cross-
examination.
10. In State of U.P. Through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, reported as
(2005) 8 SCC 21 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 18 observed as
follows:-
"18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered
in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any
prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and
gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment
in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused
absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing
of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being
repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of
course, of justice being thwarted by grant of
bail[see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi [(2001) 4
SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] and Gurcharan
Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1978) 1 SCC 118 :
1978 SCC (Cri) 41 : AIR 1978 SC 179] ]. While a
vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the
evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse
bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere
presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if
there is material to show that he will use his liberty to
subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail
will be refused. We may also refer to the following
principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated
in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7
SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] : (SCC pp. 535-36,
para 11)
"11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is
very well settled. The court granting bail should
exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and
not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of
granting bail a detailed examination of evidence
and elaborate documentation of the merit of the
case need not be undertaken, there is a need to
indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly
where the accused is charged of having committed
a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons
would suffer from non-application of mind. It is
also necessary for the court granting bail to
consider among other circumstances, the following
factors also before granting bail; they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the
nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in
support of the charge. (See Ram Govind
Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh[(2002) 3 SCC
598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688]
and Puran v. Rambilas[(2001) 6 SCC 338 :
2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] .)"
11. The Supreme Court in terms of its earlier decision in State vs. Captain
Jagjit Singh reported as AIR 1962 SC 253, has observed as under:-
"5. .......Among other considerations, which a court
has to take into account in deciding whether bail
should be granted in a non-bailable offence, is the
nature of the offence; and if the offence is of a kind
in which bail should not be granted considering its
seriousness, the court should refuse bail even though
it has very wide powers under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure."
12. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence; magnitude of the crime;
the severity of the punishment that conviction would entail; the nature of the
evidence available against the applicant; and the prima facie satisfaction of
this court in support of the charge, in my opinion this is not a fit case for
grant of regular bail to the applicant. Resultantly, the present application is
dismissed. However, it is made clear that nothing stated in this order shall be
considered as an expression by this court on the merits of the case.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
JANUARY 07, 2016
mk
