Delhi High Court
Santosh Devi vs The State Of Delhi on 23 January, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2608/2019
% Date of decision: 23rd January, 2020
SANTOSH DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.S. Juneja and Mr.Yogesh
Kumar Rana, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the
State with SI Vineet Kumar, PS
Dayalpur, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No. 195/2019 under
Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Dayalpur,
North-East District, Delhi.
2. In brief, as per the FIR on 18.02.2018 marriage of the daughter
of the complainant, namely, Paras was solemnized with Deepak
according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is alleged that
complainant had given some gold and silver ornaments along with
cash of Rs.1,51,000/-. It is further alleged that petitioner, who is the
mother-in-law of the husband of the deceased used to beat her and
used to demand dowry from her and they also used to abuse the
petitioner in this regard. It is further alleged that after two months of
marriage Deepak, husband of the deceased, demanded Rs.2,30,000/-
which was given to him by the complainant. It is alleged that on
17.05.2019 at about 1:30 p.m. it came to the notice of the complainant
that deceased Paras had committed suicide.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner is an old lady aged about 54 years and is in JC since
09.08.2019 and she has been falsely implicated in this case. It is
submitted that her son and the deceased were living happily in their
married life and there was no demand of dowry at any point of time.
It is also submitted that no harassment was caused to the deceased at
any point of time. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that deceased used to insist to separate from the family
therefore she was upset and sometimes used to misbehave and abuse
the petitioner. It is submitted that this conduct of the deceased was
brought to the notice of the mother of the deceased who assured the
petitioner that she would make the deceased understand. It is further
submitted that deceased had attended a marriage function in Rajasthan
on 05.04.2019 and came back on 15.05.2019 along with her uncle. It
is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that allegations
against the petitioner are vague in nature and there is nothing on
record to suggest that soon before her death she was subjected to
cruelty which is one of the prime ingredients of Section 304B. There
are inconsistencies in the submission of the father of the deceased
recorded before the SDM under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments in the case of
Geeta Vs. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi), 2015 [2] JCC 1476 and
Maya Devi & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana, 2016 [1] JCC 737.
4. Status report has been filed on behalf of the State.
5. It is submitted by learned APP for the State that the allegations
against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is further submitted that
there are allegations against the petitioner in the FIR and in the
statements of the mother and father of the deceased recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the father of the
deceased has made a statement before the SDM regarding torture and
demand of dowry from the deceased. He further submits that the
statement of the father of the deceased was recorded on the same day
when the death has occurred so he was very much disturbed with the
death of his daughter and was not in a position to mention everything
in the FIR, however, he narrated all the facts in his statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the same day. He further submits that
the death of the deceased has occurred within one year and three
months of the marriage and deceased was only aged about 22 years
and was having a female child of two months. It is further alleged that
it is highly improbable that a lady would commit suicide leaving
behind her two month's old child unless and until she has been
harassed and tortured to a great extent. It is further alleged that
charges are yet to be framed and material witnesses have to be
examined. So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel
for the petitioner are concerned, there is no dispute to the proposition
of law laid down in the said judgments. The judgment titled as Maya
Devi and Anr. (supra) is a judgment after conviction and not
applicable to the facts of this case. As far as judgment in the case of
Geeta (supra) is concerned, in this particular case all the material
witnesses were examined when the bail application was considered,
however, in the present case trial is yet to begin, charges are not
framed, material witnesses are yet to be examined.
6. With regard to the contention that there is some improvement in
the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made by the father of the
petitioner, in my opinion, this contention has no force and it can be
taken care of at the time of the trial.
7. The father and the mother of the deceased whose statements
have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have categorically
stated that there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- and Air Conditioner by
the petitioner and her son (husband of the deceased) which was told to
them by the daughter on 12.15.2019 and they have also stated that
when this demand was not met they used to torture/beat Paras
(deceased), so it cannot be said that there was no demand of dowry
from the deceased soon before her death, and moreover as per the
statements of the mother and father of the deceased the demand of
Rs.50,000/- and Air Conditioner was narrated to them on 12.05.2019
by the deceased and she committed suicide on 17.05.2019.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the present application is dismissed.
9. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression
of any opinion on the merits of the case.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
JANUARY 23, 2020/AK
