Delhi High Court
Mohd. Nazim @ Sonu vs State on 23 April, 2019
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 23.04.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 892/2019
MOHD. NAZIM @ SONU ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pushkar Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent : Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, Addl. PP for the
State with SI Dinesh Kumar, P.S.Gokulpuri.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A.7395/2019 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
BAIL APPLN. 892/2019
1. Issue Notice. Notice accepted by learned APP for the State. Status
report is filed. Same is taken on record.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 345/2018, under Section
498A/304B/34 IPC P.S.Gandhi Nagar. Subsequently during investigation
Section 306 IPC has been added. Charge has been framed against the
petitioner under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC and alternatively under
Section 302 IPC.
3. The deceased was married to the petitioner on 22.11.2017 and died
on account of asphyxiation on 15.07.2018. Subject FIR was registered on
the complaint of the mother of the deceased who had alleged that the
petitioner was having an illicit relation with his sister-in-law and she
suspected that on account thereof petitioner has eliminated the deceased.
4. Statement of the complainant was recorded before the SDM on
16.07.2018 and on a query by the SDM, the mother of the deceased
specifically stated that there was no demand for dowry. FIR was registered
on 17.07.2018.
5. In a subsequent statement, given on 01.08.2018, by the father of the
deceased, it is alleged that there was demand for dowry and he had paid
Rs.75,000/- within 2-3 moths of the marriage and thereafter on 14.07.2018
had paid another Rs.1 lakh to the deceased for meeting the demand of the
petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated. He submits that the mother had categorically stated
before the SDM that there is no demand for dowry and there is no
allegation of any harassment of the deceased by the petitioner or his family
on account of dowry and the subsequent statement given by the father of
the deceased after a gap of nearly two weeks is an afterthought and an
improvement and contradicts the very statement given by the mother of the
deceased before the SDM. He further submits that there is no independent
material collected by the prosecution to corroborate the allegation that there
was ever any demand for dowry or harassment on account of dowry. He
further submits that the allegation of the petitioner of illicit relation with his
sister-in-law is also unsubstantiated. He submits that petitioner has been in
custody since 17.07.2018. Charge sheet has already been filed and charge
has been framed.
7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view
the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that
petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.
8. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.
25,000/- with one surety 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. Petitioner shall not contact the family of the
deceased. Petitioner shall also not leave the country without the permission
of the Trial Court. Petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, to the IO,
if not already done so.
9. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
APRIL 23, 2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
rk
