Brijesh Kumar vs State
2018 Latest Caselaw 7269 Del

$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Judgment delivered on: 10.12.2018

+      BAIL APPLN. 2482/2018
       BRIJESH KUMAR                                   ..... Petitioner

                           versus

       STATE                                           ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner :      Mr. Amit Saxena, Advocate.


For the Respondent :       Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State.
                           SI Ashwani Kumar, PS Jyoti Nagar.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
                             JUDGMENT

10.12.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.411/2017 under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC, Police Station Jyoti Nagar. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased.

2. The subject FIR was registered on the complaint of the father of the deceased. The allegations in the FIR are that he had married his daughter and given all gifts and articles as per his status. It is alleged that in-laws of his daughter were demanding a car and as he could not

fulfil their demands for providing a car, the in-laws were harassing the deceased. The allegation is that since the demand was not met, the in- laws of his daughter had murdered her by burning her.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that there is no incriminating evidence available to substantiate that the petitioner had ever demanded any dowry or any vehicle or was harassing her apart from the bald allegations of the father of the deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 30.09.2017 and two of the family members have been discharged by the Trial Court as there was no incriminating evidence available against them. He submits that the statement given by the father was a general statement against the in- laws and the petitioner has been roped in solely because he was the husband of the deceased without there being any incriminating material or allegation against him.

5. Without commenting on the merits of the case and on perusal of the record, I am satisfied that petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.

6. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in

any other case. Petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.

7. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

8. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J DECEMBER 10, 2018 st