Delhi High Court - Orders
Ravinder Kumar vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 4 August, 2020
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1070/2020
RAVINDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr Akhand Pratap Singh, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through Mr Amit Ahlawat, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 04.08.2020 [Hearing held through videoconferencing]
1. The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 439 Cr.PC seeking bail in FIR No. 466/2019 under Section 498A/306/34 IPC PS Narela.
2. It is the prosecution's case that the petitioner's wife had committed suicide on 23.08.2019 by ingesting a poisonous substance. Information regarding the same was received by the police on 23.08.2019. At the material time the petitioner's wide (hereafter the deceased) was aged twenty-eight years. She was admitted to Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh by the petitioner and was declared "brought dead" by the said hospital.
3. The petitioner married the deceased on 02.03.2016 and she had died within a span of seven years of unnatural causes.
4. Inquest proceedings were conducted under Section 176 Cr.PC, however, neither any substance nor any suicide note was found. The statements of the father and the brother of the deceased were recorded on 24.08.2019 but they did not level any allegation against the petitioner or his family members.
5. On 26.09.2019, the mother of the deceased made a statement levelling certain allegations against the petitioner. First of all, she alleged that the petitioner had demanded a sum of ₹10 lakhs from the deceased and she had paid ₹25,000/- to him. Her statement also indicates that the said demand was allegedly made because the petitioner was involved in another case. On the basis of the said statement the FIR in question was lodged.
6. The chemical analysis of the viscera of the deceased indicates that she has consumed aluminium phosphide. The charge sheet alleging commission of offence of abetment of suicide has been filed, however, charges are yet to be framed.
7. Mr Ahlawat, the learned APP appearing for the State submits that the charge sheet is premised solely on the basis of the statement made by the mother of the deceased.
8. A plain reading of the statement of the mother of the deceased recorded on 26.09.2019 indicates that it does not contain any specific allegation regarding harassment or cruelty. The allegation that a demand of ₹10 lakhs was made is yet to be examined. It does not appear that the said demand was a dowry demand because the same was not made in the context of marriage between the deceased and the petitioner and also not made at the time of the marriage.
9. It is also relevant to note that the mother of the deceased had made a statement after more than a month after the date of the incident.
10. Although, it is alleged that the petitioner was having an extramarital affair and used to harass the deceased, there are no specific instances or even the details as to how he would harass her.
11. At this stage, this Court is not required to examine the evidence or the material collected by the prosecution in any further details as the charges are yet to be framed. The investigation is complete. There is nothing on record which indicates that releasing the petitioner poses any risk of him fleeing and evading the proceedings. Considering that the only material witness for the prosecution is the mother of the deceased, the risk of the petitioner influencing the witness is also minimal.
12. In view of the above, this Court considers it apposite to allow the present application. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹20,000/- with one surety of the equivalent amount. This is also subject to the following further conditions:-
(a) that the petitioner shall not leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi;
(b) that the petitioner shall mark his presence before the SHO PS Narela on first Monday of each calendar month; for the first four months he would do so telephonically and report his whereabouts, however, thereafter he would physically appear before the concerned police station and mark his presence physically;
(c) that the petitioner shall ensure that he is available and attends all proceedings before the Trial Court;
(d) that the petitioner shall ensure that he shall not directly or indirectly contact the mother of his deceased wife or attempt to influence her or any of the witnesses either directly or indirectly.
13. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
14. A copy of this order be communicated to the Jail Authorities electronically.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J AUGUST 04, 2020 pkv