Delhi High Court
Shanti Devi vs State on 19 September, 2019
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19.09.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 2341/2019
SHANTI DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Adit S. Pujari and Mr. Naman
Gauba, Mr. Kunal Negi, Mr. Kartik
Venu and Mr. Viren Bansal, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Panna Lal Sharma, APP for State
with Inspector Ajay Kumar, SHO
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 36150/2019
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 2341/2019
2. Vide the present bail application, the applicant/petitioner/accused
seeks directions thereby to release the petitioner on bail in connection with
FIR No. 654/2018, registered at Police Station - Bhalswa Dairy for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the daughter of the informant was
married to applicant/accused's son Arjun and on the night of 3.12.2018, she
was found hanging by the ceiling fan at her matrimonial home. The
informant has further alleged that her daughter was treated with cruelty by
her husband and his family in connection with demand for dowry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
entire allegations of the informant are completely false and fabricated and
that neither the petitioner nor her family members ever made any demand
for dowry from the deceased or her family members.
5. The applicant was arrested by the Police on 08.01.2019 and since then
has been in judicial custody.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the charge-sheet has been filed
and charges are framed against the applicant in the present FIR and the case
is at the stage of recording of evidence. The prosecution evidence has
commenced and the informant, namely, Smt. Anaro Devi, the mother of the
deceased stands examined. Evidence of the said witness i.e. Smt. Anaro
Devi, who has been cited as the primary witness by the prosecution is
hearsay evidence having no veracity. Further, she has given contradictory
statements in her cross examination and u/s 164 and 161 Cr.P.C., which
apparently weakens the bogus and sham case of the prosecution.
7. The other witnesses as cited by the prosecution in the charge sheet are
also hearsay witnesses as per their statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C and
there is strong likelihood that the prosecution will not be able to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt.
8. It has been submitted that the complainant/ Smt. Anaro Devi has
shown grave inconsistency as regards her previous statements made before
the Ld. SDM and Investigating Agency which has completely diminished
the case of the prosecution.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant has deposed that
she received a telephonic call from the deceased one day prior to the date of
incident of beatings by the in-laws and further, as per the MLC or Post
Mortem report, no injury marks were found on the body of the deceased.
10. Moreover, after the incident, the applicant and his family members
immediately informed the in-laws and, thereafter, cremation took place in
the presence of both the families.
11. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that since there
were no serious injuries caused to the deceased before her death, therefore,
injuries are not mentioned in the MLC or the Post Mortem report. There are
specific allegations against the applicant and her family members regarding
demand for dowry and beatings. Even otherwise, there is no reason as to
why an innocent person would commit suicide. There must be some reason
behind it. Since the incident has taken place in the matrimonial house and
the applicant alongwith his family members were present there, therefore,
they would better know as to what had happened before the death and the
same is a matter of trial.
12. It is not in dispute that the accident has taken place on 03.12.2018 and
the applicant was arrested after one month of the incident and, since then,
she is in custody. The material witness i.e. the complainant has already been
examined. The complainant stated in her examination that she did not lodge
any complaint to the police when she came to know that her daughter was
being harassed. She never took her daughter to a hospital for assessing the
nature of the beatings given to her. She failed to tell the exact time and dates
on which the accused persons had harassed or had given beatings to her
daughter.
13. The allegations in the FIR are that on non-fulfilment of demands for
money and vehicle, the applicants used to beat the complainant's daughter
and often used to give threats to kill her. On 03.12.2018, at about 10.30 PM,
Sh. Rajesh, father-in-law of the deceased, told the complainant that her
daughter - Rakhi strangulated herself. At about 11.30 PM, they reached
their house at Bhalswa Dairy. The matrimonial home of the complainant's
daughter was found locked and the complainant came to know that the body
of her daughter - Rakhi had been moved to BJRM Hospital. When the
complainant reached the said hospital alongwith other family members, she
came to know that her daughter had died. The complainant further stated that
the daughter has not committed suicide and that she was killed by her in-
laws due to non-fulfilment of demands for money and vehicle.
14. Keeping in view the facts that the petitioner was arrested after one
month on 08.01.2019 and since then, she is in jail and that material witness
has already been examined, this Court is inclined to admit the applicant on
bail. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I hereby
direct the petitioner to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the
sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court.
15. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly talk or influence any of
the witnesses.
16. The application is allowed and disposed of.
17. Order dasti, under the signatures of Court Master.
18. Copy of this order be transmitted to the Jail Superintendent and the
Trial Court concerned for compliance.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 19, 2019
PB
