Delhi High Court
Ram Ashre vs The State on 26 December, 2022
2022/DHC/005852
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 26.12.2022
+ BAIL APPLN. 2268/2022
RAM ASHRE ..... Applicant
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant : Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Narender Kumar &
Mr. Prabhash, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."), seeking regular bail in FIR No.
0691/2021, under Sections 498A/304B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
("IPC"), registered at Police Station Ranhola.
2. The FIR was registered on a complaint made by father of the
deceased, Shri Sarvesh Kumar, alleging that the son of the applicant,
Sonu was married to deceased, Neha, who committed suicide on
19.09.2021, due to harassment and torture, being caused by her
husband, Sonu, and his family members, including the applicant, Ram
Ashre. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:20:10
2022/DHC/005852
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the accused,
husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased who have been
specifically named by complainant are in judicial custody. He submits
that no role has been alleged to the applicant and a vague allegation
has been made that the entire family of the husband was responsible
for the dowry death.
4. He further submits that the learned Trial Court, by order dated
12.11.2021, has already granted pre-arrest bail to the brother-in-law of
the deceased, specifically noting that the prime witness, Anisha,
whose statement has been heavily relied upon by the prosecution, had
only named the husband, Sonu, the mother-in-law, Maya Devi, and
she had also specifically said in the statement that the deceased did not
take anyone else's name.
5. The learned APP has opposed the present bail application and
submits that the allegations are serious in nature.
6. It is clear from the perusal of record that the only allegation
made against the present applicant by the father of the deceased, in his
statement to the police, is that husband of the deceased and his family
members, namely, his father, mother, brother, and sister, committed
cruelty on the deceased and made demands for dowry. No specific
allegation has been made against the applicant. The case of the
prosecution is based on the statements made by the family and friend
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:20:10
2022/DHC/005852
of the deceased, namely, Anisha, who had given certain details about
the phone call being made by the deceased before her death. The said
statement is also corroborated by the CDR. It is, however, significant
to note that the prime witness, Anisha, in her statement had
specifically mentioned that the deceased had only alleged cruelty
against her husband and mother-in-law. Whether the applicant had any
role to play in the commission of offence would be tested at the time
of trial. At this stage, however, it cannot be presumed that he is guilty
of the offence.
7. The applicant is 65 years of age and has been in incarceration
since 27.09.2021.
8. Specific allegations of demand of dowry or committing cruelty
on the deceased in relation to the demand of dowry have not been
made against the present applicant.
9. The presumption in law of a 'dowry death' is meant to act as a
deterrent to the demand of dowry and to ensure that there is no
victimization because of that. The allegations levelled will be tested in
trial and at this stage considering the Application for Bail only the
parameters enshrined in that regard are to be considered.
10. In Savita v. State of Delhi, (2019) 10 SCC 29, Supreme Court
granted Bail to the accused charged for offences under Sections 498-A
and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, considering that the accused
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:20:10
2022/DHC/005852
had already been in jail for 27 months out of a total sentence of 10
years' rigorous imprisonment.
11. The applicant is in custody since 27.09.2021, the chargesheet
was filed way back on 15.03.2022 and the case is pending at the stage
of argument on charge. The charges against the applicant would be
tested at the time of trial.
12. Without commenting further on the merits of the case, keeping
the facts and circumstances in mind and the fact that the trial is likely
to take some time, I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case
for grant of regular bail.
13. The applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on
furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- (rupees Fifty thousand
only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned
Trial Court / Duty Metropolitan Magistrate on the following
conditions:
a. He shall under no circumstance leave Delhi without
informing the concerned IO / SHO.
b. He shall not take adjournment and attend the Trial Court
proceedings on every date.
b. He shall join and cooperate in further investigation.
c. The applicant shall not, in any manner, try to contact any
of the witnesses.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:20:10
2022/DHC/005852
d. He shall provide his mobile number to the investigating
officer (IO) concerned/SHO concerned at the time of release
which shall be kept in working conditions at all times.
14. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/ complaint lodged
against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by
way of seeking cancellation of bail.
15. It is also made clear that the observations made in the present
case are only for the purpose of considering the bail application and
should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
16. The present application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
DECEMBER 26, 2022
"SS / KDK"
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.12.2022
15:20:10
