Mohit Sharma vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)
2019 Latest Caselaw 6033 Del

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                         Judgment delivered on: 27.11.2019
+      BAIL APPLN. 2663/2019
       Mohit Sharma                                   ..... Petitioner
                           Through:     Mr. M. N. Dudeja, Mr. Neeraj
                                        Bhardwaj & Mr. Aditya
                                        Mishra, Advocates.
                           versus
       STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)                   ..... Respondent
                           Through      Mr. G M Farooqui,
                                        APP for State with S I Suresh.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
                               JUDGMENT

BRIJESH SETHI, J.(oral)

1. Vide this order I shall dispose of a bail application filed u/s. 439

CrPC by the petitioner Mohit Sharma in FIR No. 355/2018 u/s.

498/304-B/34 IPC, P.S. Karawal Nagar.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground

that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is

submitted that petitioner is husband of the deceased who has

endeavoured his best to save the life of the deceased. He himself took

her to GTB hospital and also gave her the best treatment. He even

shifted the deceased to Ganga Ram hospital and spent money beyond

his capacity in order to save the deceased. It is submitted that family

members of deceased have roped-in entire family of the present

petitioner out of vengeance. The first bail application of the petitioner

was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.03.2019 and last bail

application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Ld. ASJ,

Karkardooma Courts vide order dated 13.09.2019 wherein Ld. ASJ

has misjudged and misinterpreted that the petitioner cannot draw any

mileage out of the fact that all the other co-accused have already been

granted bail.

3. It is submitted that on 24.07.2018 when the petitioner, husband

of the deceased was at his job, deceased attempted to commit suicide

by closing the door from inside. On 03.08.2018, the deceased was

declared dead and subsequently a FIR bearing no. 355/2018 u/s. 498-

A/304-B/34 IPC PS Karawal Nagar was lodged against the in-laws

including the present petitioner and charge has been framed u/s. 498-A

/304-B/34 IPC by the Ld. ASJ and the trial is at the stage of

examination of prosecution witness. It is further submitted that

independent witness Mr. Pooja Ram who is the mediator of the

marriage has clearly deposed that the petitioner and his family never

harassed the deceased, rather the deceased used to make big issues out

of trivial matters. It is further submitted that there is not even a single

complaint lodged by Sh. Ram Sewak and Smt. Bhoo Devi (parents of

the deceased) and other witnesses about deceased being subjected to

harassment on account of dowry during the subsistence of the

marriage nor any complaint was made to the police, Women Cell or

the mediator of the marriage about any problem or any cruelty

inflicted upon the deceased. It is, therefore, prayed that petitioner be

released on bail in the interest of justice.

4. Ld. APP for the state has opposed the bail application on the

ground that allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in

nature. He has subjected her to cruelty in connection with demand of

dowry and has compelled her to commit suicide within six months

from the date of her marriage. It is further submitted that there are

direct and specific allegations regarding demand of dowry and

harassment of deceased by her in-laws including present petitioner. He

has, therefore prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

5. I have considered the rival submissions. Learned Counsel for

the petitioner has relied upon following judgments:-

i) Nitin Kumar Vs. State, 2015(4) Crimes 52 (Del.)

ii) Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2000) 5 SCC 207

iii) Narender Singh Arora Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors., 173(2010) DLT 244,

iv) Nanha Vs. State of U.P., 1992 SCC OnLine All 871,

v) Maya Devi and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana, (2015) SCC 405,

vi) Meka Ramaswamy vs. Dasari mohan and Ors., 1998 SCC (Cri) 604,

6. I have gone through the above case law. There is no quarrel

with the proposition of law laid down therein. However, these

authorities are distinguishable on the basis of facts and circumstances

stated therein.

7. According to prosecution, on 03.08.2018, a case was registered

on the statement of Sh. Ram Sewak, father of the deceased, who stated

that deceased who was his third daughter was married on 06.02.2018

with petitioner Mohit Sharma. He further alleged that his daughter was

harassed for demands of dowry etc. His daughter was pressurized to

bring gold necklace. In her in-laws family, her mother-in-law Kuntri,

father-in-law Shyam Sharma, husband Mohit Sharma i.e. petitioner

and sister-in-law Gola used to harass her and beat her on daily basis.

Complainant further submitted in his statement that his daughter had

disclosed all these facts to him on phone. Petitioner has been

specifically named in the statement made by the complainant/ father

of the deceased before Executive Magistrate and there are allegations

regarding demand of dowry and cruelty. In view of the above facts

and keeping in mind the nature of allegations against the petitioner, no

grounds for bail are made out. The bail application is, therefore,

dismissed.

BRIJESH SETHI, J NOVEMBER 27, 2019 Amit