Delhi High Court
Manish Kumar Sharma vs State on 23 January, 2019
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 23.01.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 2769/2018
MANISH KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State.
SI Brahmprakash, PS Ranhola.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.129/2018 under Sections
498A/304B/34 IPC, Police Station Ranhola.
2. FIR was registered on the complaint of the father of the
deceased. It is alleged that at the time of the marriage the complainant
had given all the necessary household dowry articles as per his status.
FIR contends that approximately for a period of 1 year after the
marriage everything was alright. Thereafter a girl child was born. It
is alleged that after the birth of the girl child harassment of his
daughter started. The allegation is that the daughter used to be sent
back home several times and she used to complain of harassment. FIR
further alleges that the complainant was informed by his daughter that
the petitioner along with other family members were demanding
Rs.10 lakhs. Thereafter, after some time, he received information that
his daughter had expired. Similar statements were given by the
mother and the brother of the deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated. He submits that there is no independent
witness produced by the prosecution to establish that there was ever
any demand for dowry or harassment of the deceased on account of
dowry. He further submits that apart from the bald and vague
allegations, there is no incident or specific given by the complainant
or the other witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the statements given by the complainant, the mother and
the brother of the deceased are identical in nature, which shows that
they are not independent statements.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner has been in custody since 15.02.2018. He submits that the
trial is still at a very nascent stage and is being delayed and even the
family members of the deceased have not yet been examined and
substantial time is likely to be taken in conclusion of the trial.
5. Without commenting on the merit of the case and keeping in
view the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.02.2018
and the trial is likely to take some time, I am of the view that the
petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. 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 leave the country
without permission of the Trial Court.
6. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
7. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 23, 2019
st
