Delhi High Court
Sangita vs State Nct Of Delhi on 5 December, 2011
Author: V.K. Shali
Bench: V.K. Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPL. NO.1601/2011
BAIL APPL. NO.1602/2011
Date of Decision : 05.12.2011
BAIL APPL. NO.1601/2011
SANGITA ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.N.Hariharan, Adv.
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
AND
BAIL APPL. NO.1602/2011
LAVESH ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.Hariharan, Adv.
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
Bail Appl. Nos.1601 & 1602/2011 Page 1 of 7
2. The contention of Mr. Hariharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sangita and Lavesh are the real sister and brother of the husband of the deceased. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if one reads the complaint lodged by Smt. Veena, W/o Hira Lal, R/o 3634, Raigerpura, Delhi, mother of the deceased, which has been converted into an FIR No. 259/2011, under Section 498A/304B IPC registered by P.S. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, there is no allegation in the said complaint that either of the petitioners had subjected the deceased to cruelty with an intention to demand dowry. It has been stated that the name of Lavesh was not at all mentioned in the complaint. So far as the sister-in-law/Sangita is concerned, the only allegation against her is that she used to taunt the deceased and trouble her. There was no specific allegation against her that there was a demand of dowry. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the sister and the Bail Appl. Nos.1601 & 1602/2011 Page 2 of 7 brother of the husband of the deceased were living separately. It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been laid down by this Court that in order to make out a prima facie offence under Section 304B, IPC, there must be a linkage between the demand of dowry and the resultant death of the deceased. In case, the link is missing the presumption cannot be drawn and the petitioner is entitled to grant of anticipatory bail.
3. I have gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The learned APP has vehementally contested the prayer for grant of bail on the ground that the deceased had allegedly committed suicide after about one year and eight months and further she was pregnant at the time when she had taken her life. It has been stated that the FIR which has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the mother of the deceased is not Bail Appl. Nos.1601 & 1602/2011 Page 3 of 7 supposed to be an encyclopedia. The police during the course of the investigation has recorded the supplementary statement of Hira Lal, father of the deceased, the neighbour of the deceased near the matrimonial home as well as the supplementary statement of the complainant/mother of the deceased. It has been stated that on the basis of these supplementary statements, it has been clearly made out that as far as both the petitioners are concerned, there was a definite allegation against them. They had subjected the deceased to cruelty with a view to demand dowry right from the date of marriage and also immediately before the date of the death.
5. The learned APP has contended that it has come in the supplementary statement that Lavesh was declared successful in the draw of lots in respect of a flat by the DDA and he had got an allotment letter of a flat at Vasant Kunj, Delhi, for which he had to make a payment of Rs.5,00,000/-. He made the demand of Bail Appl. Nos.1601 & 1602/2011 Page 4 of 7 Rs.5,00,000/- from the deceased. It is, therefore, stated that since the case is at the threshold itself, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that so far as the allegation of demand of dowry or payment of `5,00,000/- for the part payment of the cost of the flat is concerned, the said payment was made by Lavesh in the month of May, 2011 itself, from his account. The statement of the account of Lavesh was attached along with the petition to show that his account was debited to that extent. It is, therefore, contended that it was only a wild allegation and an afterthought.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. The deceased had committed suicide in less than two years from the date of her marriage. Moreover, she was stated to have been pregnant at the time of taking her own life. No doubt, the complaint of Ms. Veena, the Bail Appl. Nos.1601 & 1602/2011 Page 5 of 7 mother of the deceased has been converted into FIR, there may not be a graphic description about the demand of dowry raised by the petitioner. But that is not the evidence which alone has to be seen by the Court at the stage of the grant of bail. The Court also has to see the evidence which has been gathered otherwise and the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The supplementary statement of Veena and Hira Lal, parents of the deceased as well as the neighbour categorically makes out a case prima face for investigation to show that immediately before the death of the deceased the petitioner in conjunction with other family members had subjected the deceased to cruelty with a view to demand dowry, and therefore, the allegations against the petitioner in my view at this stage are very serious in nature. Unless free hand is given to the investigating agency, the truth will not surface. The Supreme Court in the case titled Samunder Singh Vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1987 SC Bail Appl. Nos.1601 & 1602/2011 Page 6 of 7 737 has also not approved the grant of bail in a case of such a nature.
9. For the reasons mentioned above and since the case is still at the threshold, I do not feel that it is a fit case where the benefit of anticipatory bail deserves to be extended to the petitioner.
10. Expression of any opinion may not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.
V.K. SHALI, J.
DECEMBER 05, 2011 KP Bail Appl. Nos.1601 & 1602/2011 Page 7 of 7