Mukesh @ Murari vs State Of Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2017 Latest Caselaw 625 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   BAIL APPLN. 11/2017
                                  Date of Decision: February 02nd, 2017

    MUKESH @ MURARI                                       ..... Petitioner
                           Through      Mr.Sandeep Kaushik & Mr.Montu,
                                        Advs.

                  versus

    STATE OF GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI          ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Panna Lal Sharma, APP with SI Karamvir, PS Narela.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

P.S. TEJI, J

1. The present application has been filed under Section 439 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner/accused for the

grant of regular bail in FIR No.360/2015, under Sections

304B/498A/34 IPC, Police Station Narela.

2. The facts emerging from the records, are that the

complainant Kartik had made a statement to the police that the

marriage of his sister Pooja was solemnized with accused Mukesh

@ Murari on 19.04.2014. The last Monday prior to filing of the

complaint, his sister came to her parental home and informed that

she had a quarrel with her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and

husband. She also informed that her husband left her at her

parental home. On 28.03.2015, the complainant along with his

family had gone to Panipat to a Jagran. At about 09.00 p.m., the

complainant received a phone call from his sister that accused

Mukesh had come to the house and had been quarrelling. The

complainant reached his home and made the accused understand

upto 01.30 a.m. but the accused kept on abusing them and left their

home after extending threats to kill the sister of the complainant.

In the morning, the complainant went to his office. At about 09.15

a.m., a phone call was received by the complainant from his sister

Divya who was weeping and informed that Pooja was hanging

from a fan. The complainant further stated that his deceased sister

informed him that her husband was a characterless man.

Whenever there was a quarrel between them, accused used to

blame the sister of the complainant. The deceased visited her

parental home on the occasion of Bhai Duj and informed while

weeping that her husband was insisting on wife swapping and on

her refusal, she was threatened to be divorced and killed. The

father-in-law and mother-in-law also used to beat the deceased.

On the occasion of Diwali, mother-in-law asked the deceased to

bring Rs.5 lakhs. The deceased was also given beatings on account

of demand of dowry by her sisters-in-law Aarti, Baby and Neeru

and also by Naresh (nandoi). When the deceased was pregnant,

the child was aborted by accused Mukesh and nanad Baby by

administering some medicine.

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

instant case was registered. Statement of Smt.Sunita, mother of the

deceased was also recorded. After conducting post-mortem on the

dead body of deceased, same was handed over to the complainant.

Accused Mukesh @ Murari was arrested on 29.03.2015. After

completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.

4. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as learned APP for the State were heard.

5. Argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that

the relations between the petitioner and deceased were cordial.

Contents of FIR are false and concocted. No demand of any dowry

was ever made. The deceased was never subjected to cruelty or

harassment on account of demand of dowry. It was further argued

that the trial is at the initial stage and its conclusion will take

sufficient time. It is further submitted that the petitioner is having

deep roots in the society.

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

bail application on the ground that the trial of the present case is at

the initial stage and the public witnesses are yet to be examined. If

the accused is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence

and influence the prosecution witnesses.

7. Perusal of record shows that the charge under Section

498A/304B/34 IPC has been framed against the petitioner/accused

Mukesh and other co-accused Pushpa Devi and Lachi Ram,

whereas charge under Section 498A/34 IPC has been framed

against the remaining accused persons, namely, Aarti, Bharti,

Neeru and Naresh. There are specific allegations against the

petitioner/accused that he used to harass and torture the deceased

on account of demand of dowry. There was specific demand of

Rs.5 lakhs from the deceased by the accused. It is also alleged

against the accused that he along with other co-accused persons

used to beat the deceased on account of demand of dowry which

led to the taking of extreme step by the deceased in ending her life.

8. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances,

seriousness of the allegations and the fact that the public witnesses

are yet to be examined and there is apprehension of influencing the

prosecution witnesses, this Court is not inclined to release the

accused/petitioner on bail. However, the trial court is directed to

expedite the trial.

9. Before parting with the order, this Court would like to place

it on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been

stated hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the

purpose of disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner.

Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression of

a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for

decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done by the

Trial Court seized of the trial.

10. With aforesaid directions, the present bail application stands

dismissed.

P.S.TEJI, J FEBRUARY 02, 2017 dd