Suman Tomar vs State on 5 April, 2022

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Suman Tomar vs State on 5 April, 2022

1. The applicant has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail and has also challenged rejection of her anticipatory bail application by the learned ASJ on 06.01.2022 in case FIR No. 241/2021, P.S. Shahdara under Section 304- B/498-A/34 IPC.

2. The brief facts narrated by the applicant are that the marriage of her son Siddhanth Tomar was solemnized with Charu (since deceased) on 14.05.2021 through one mediator Shri Pradeep Kumar Arya.

2.1. The allegations in the FIR are that the applicant demanded Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, Rs.1,75,000/- for furniture and Rs. 70,000/- for clothes. It was further alleged that the family of the deceased Charu also gave ornaments worth Rs. 4,50,000/- to the deceased at the time of marriage. After the marriage, the allegation is that the applicant and her son demanded a car from the deceased and for that they used to give beatings to the deceased.

2.2. On 29.07.2021, the deceased went to her parental home as her mother BAIL APPLN. 510/2022 page 1 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:06.04.2022 11:55 had to undergo an operation. On 15.08.2021 in the evening, Charu was brought back by her husband.

2.3. On 16.08.2021 in the evening, the complainant (father of the deceased) came to know that his daughter had fallen from a height and she was taken to the hospital, where she was declared brought dead. Apprehension was shown that Charu was thrown from the roof after being beaten to her. The husband of the deceased (son of the applicant) was arrested on 16.08.2021 and he is still in judicial custody.

2.4. The applicant was summoned number of times to join investigation and she had complied with the said directions. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed without arrest of the applicant. The learned CMM took cognizance of the offences and summoned the applicant to appear before the Court.

2.5. Since the matter is exclusively triable before the Sessions Court, the Court of learned CMM is not competent to grant bail. Hence, an application was filed before the learned ASJ, apprehending that the applicant might be sent to the judicial custody by the learned CMM before committing the case before the Sessions Court but the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present application was filed.

3. The grounds adjudicated by the applicant are that once the investigation is complete, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required, so the applicant is entitled to bail; there is no material on record to show that the applicant is at flight risk; there had been a delay of 33-34 days in recording the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; learned ASJ failed to appreciate that the applicant had joined the investigation and had cooperated in the same;

BAIL APPLN. 510/2022 page 2 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:06.04.2022 11:55 bail is a rule and jail is an exception; mere perusal of FIR does not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences under Section 304 IPC; one suicidal note purportedly written by the deceased was recovered and the same was sent to FSL along with admitted handwriting of the deceased and the result is awaited; there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses; the applicant has clean antecedents and has permanent place of abode and she is ready and willing to furnish sound surety and to abide by any conditions to be laid down by the Court.

4. Notice was issued. Status report has been filed by the State.

5. The complainant has also filed written submissions.

6. It has been mentioned in Status Report that the Executive Magistrate, Ms. Alka recorded the statements of the brother and father of the deceased on 17.08.2021 and on her direction, the case was registered. The marriage between the deceased and son of the present applicant was held on 14.05.2021. Stridhan was alleged to be given to the present applicant and to her son by the complainant as per his financial capacity. The present applicant received Rs.5,00,000/- as cash and Rs. 1,50,000/- for furniture, Rs.70,000/- for clothes and Rs.4,50,000/- for jewellery. After one month of marriage, the deceased complained to her parents that her in-laws were demanding a car and she was being beaten by her in-laws. The deceased was called to her parental home to take care of her mother, who had undergone surgical operation on 29.07.2021 but her husband took her back to her matrimonial home on 15.08.2021.

6.1. On 16.08.2021, Charu accompanied her mother to Sant Parmanand Hospital, Delhi for treatment and she went back to her matrimonial home at BAIL APPLN. 510/2022 page 3 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:06.04.2022 11:55 around 12:00 p.m. She was very sad and was not speaking much. At about 11:30 a.m., the present applicant called the complainant (father of the deceased) and asked him to come in the evening of 16.08.2021. Complainant called his daughter, who did not pick up the phone and when he called his son-in-law, he came to know that Charu had fallen from a height and had been taken to the hospital.

6.2. One anklet of Charu was found on her bed and her Kangan, which was handed over to Complainant at the hospital, was also bent. Hence, he alleged that his daughter had been first killed and then thrown from the height. Post- mortem was got conducted on 18.08.2021 by the Medical Board. A DVR containing CCTV footage was seized which showed that around 5:29 p.m. on 16.08.2021, the deceased was seen falling and within seconds, the accused came there. Other persons also came there. The husband of the deceased was arrested and during interrogation he did not give any information about suicide note.

6.3. The present applicant/Suman Tomar produced a suicide note claiming it to be the handwriting of the deceased, in which she had not blamed the applicant and it was stated that she had, on her own, committed suicide. The said suicide note, along with admitted handwriting of the deceased, was sent to FSL and result was awaited.

6.4. As per the post-mortem report, all the injuries were stated to be ante- mortem in nature and produced by blunt force/surface impact to the body. The chemical analysis did not find traces of any poison. The charge sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court on 14.11.2021 without arresting the present applicant and the case is still at the stage of being committed to the Sessions.

BAIL APPLN. 510/2022 page 4 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:06.04.2022 11:55 The applicant is stated to be aged above 60 years and she has been kept in Column No. 11 in the charge sheet.

6.5. Applicant/accused was summoned by the learned CMM and she moved an anticipatory bail application before the learned ASJ, which was dismissed on 06.01.2022. As per the prosecution, the unnatural death occurred within three months from the date of marriage; the family members of the deceased had alleged that there was demand of car and the deceased being harassed due to non-fulfilment of the same.

6.6. An additional status report was filed on 09.03.2022, which deals with the suicide note sent for analysis to the FSL. The FSL report states that the questioned handwriting and signatures on the suicide note marked as Q1 and Q2 were written by the same person, who had written and signed the admitted samples being A1-A181 and A129/1, meaning thereby that the handwriting and the signatures on the suicide note are of deceased Charu. 6.7. The written submissions on behalf of the complainant are also supporting the case of the State. Reliance has been placed on Section 304B of IPC read with Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, regarding presumption in law in respect of the unnatural death within 7 years of marriage. It is stated that there is specific allegation regarding demand of dowry against the petitioner. There had been number of abrasions, pointed abrasions and graze abrasions along with number of bruises on several parts of the body of the deceased. The said injuries are under suspicion and point out that the deceased was subjected to cruelty before her death. IO was not able to trace any suicide note; however, the same was handed over on the next day by the present petitioner to the IO. Reliance has been also placed on the following BAIL APPLN. 510/2022 page 5 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:06.04.2022 11:55 judgements:

(i) Jai Prakash Singh vs State of Bihar & Anr. Dated 14 March, 2012 Supreme Court of India. Criminal Appeal Nos. 525-526 of 2012.

(ii) Samunder Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Others 1987 AIR 737 6.8. It has been prayed that the present anticipatory bail application be dismissed.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned APP for State. Section 304 B of IPC, which is relevant, is reproduced here-under:

"(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-

section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (28 of1961). ' (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."

7.1. It is to be read along with Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is reproduced here under:

"I[113B]: Presumption as to dowry death.--When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

BAIL APPLN. 510/2022 page 6 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:06.04.2022 11:55 Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 3048, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of I860).]"

7.2. It is true that the death of daughter-in-law of applicant had occurred within three months of marriage. The important factor which is to be noted here is that soon before her death, the lady should have been subjected to cruelty or harassment regarding demand for dowry. In the present case, the marriage had taken place through intervention of a mediator, namely, Shri Pradeep Kumar Arya. His statement was recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The English translation of the same is as under:

Statement by Pradeep Kumar Arya S/o Late Sh. Gulveer Singh Arya, R/o K-22, Naveen, Shahdara, Delhi, age 61 years. Mob. No. 9953159966 "Stated that I live in the said address and was a government teacher and got retired on December 2020. I have a savings account in SBI Bank, Vishwash Nagar, Delhi Branch and while going there, I got acquainted with Sh. Kamal Singh (father of Charu) and he told me to see a groom for Charu. On other side, I had an old friendship with the father of Siddhant and his mother Suman was looking for a Bride for her son. I introduced both parties at Metro Mall. Then Charu's father Kamal Singh came to Siddhant's house alongwith their relatives and had a final talk. Siddhant's mother did not make any demand of money, on which Kamal Singh said that he wants to give Rs.5 Lakh for Sofa, Almirah, Bed, TV, Fridge, Dress etc. Kamal Singh gave Rs.5 Lakh to Siddhant's mother on the day of engagement in front of me and other relatives. I was also participated in marriage. The marriage of Charu & Siddhant was solemnised on 14.05.2021 at Sri Sanatan Dharm Shiv Mandir, Shanti Mohalla, Gali No. 13, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 31 through Hindu customs. Both parties were present in marriage. Statement heard, understood and found correct."

7.3. The point to be noted here is that Sh. Arya, is an independent person BAIL APPLN. 510/2022 page 7 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:06.04.2022 11:55 and he is in knowledge of the details of the terms of marriage. He made a statement before police that the present applicant did not make any demand of money but the complainant, on his own wanted to give Rs.5,00,000/- for furniture and dresses, etc. and he accordingly gave the money to the present applicant. Where the applicant did not make any demand for money or dowry just before marriage, alleging demand of car after the marriage is a fact, which the prosecution has to prove by leading evidence, especially when there is no such complaint filed by either the deceased or by her relatives before any police authority regarding any such alleged demand soon after the said demand was raised.

7.4. Another important document to be considered at this stage is the suicide note of the deceased. As per the additional status report dated 09.03.2022, the FSL report clearly points out that the suicide note was written and signed by the deceased. Under what circumstances the said suicide note was written or recovered or handed over to the IO, these facts have to be proved during evidence and no conclusion can be arrived at this stage except to refer to the said FSL report, which clearly points out that the deceased had committed suicide after writing and signing the said suicide note. The assertion on behalf of the complainant that the deceased was beaten up by the applicant's son before her death is again to be tested at the time of evidence. 7.5. The applicant had always cooperated during investigation in spite of her being about 60 years of age. Neither in the status report nor during arguments, it has been pointed out by the learned APP that the petitioner had not cooperated during investigation. The charge sheet has been already filed.

No custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is required. It is premature BAIL APPLN. 510/2022 page 8 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:06.04.2022 11:55 to comment on the merits of the case.

8. I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to applicant on the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall appear before the Court on every date;

(ii) The applicant shall not contact/threaten the complainant and other witnesses in the present matter;

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without seeking permission of the Court.

(iv) In the event of arrest, she will be released on bail on execution of personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

9. The Bail application is disposed of accordingly, in the above terms.





                                                                              TALWANT SINGH, J
                      APRIL 05, 2022
                      pa
                                                               Click here to check corrigendum, if any




                      BAIL APPLN. 510/2022                                                page 9 of 9




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA
Signing Date:06.04.2022 11:55

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders