Point of Law: It does not lay down that the anticipatory bail has to be given, irrespective of the role attributable to an accused in the commission of the offence.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant bail application under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/applicant (hereinafter “applicant”) seeking anticipatory bail in FIR bearing No. 1238/2021 registered at Police Station Mangol Puri for offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”).

2. The prosecution version in brief is that the Complainant, who is the father of the deceased, lodged an FIR dated 14th October 2021 against 5 accused persons (in-laws of the deceased) including the applicant/accused (hereinafter “applicant”). The Complainant has alleged that his daughter got married to the brother-in-law of applicant on 28th February 2020. Soon thereafter, the accused family members including the applicant started to harass and physically torture the deceased on the pretext of dowry demands. There are specific allegations against the accused persons wherein they are being held responsible for the death of the complainant’s daughter. It was further alleged that the complainant had transferred Rs. 10 lakhs in the name of the daughter, however, the accused persons were not satisfied with it and started asking for another Rs. 10 lakhs. When the said demands were not met, she was thrown out of her matrimonial house and the husband Pratap kept on saying that he will not allow her in the matrimonial house until he gets dowry. The daughter of the complainant was also beaten badly by her mother-in-law (Bimla Devi), sister-in-law (Swati) and Vinay (applicant herein). Complaint was made to the police by the complainant’s daughter (since deceased) and her MLC was conducted. Aggrieved by the behavior of the family members, his daughter committed suicide on 14th October 2021 by hanging on the ceiling fan with a piece of cloth.

3. Ms. Rebecca M. John, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the allegation has been made with the object of humiliating the applicant by getting him arrested solely because he is the brother-in-law of the co-accused Pratap Singh (husband of the deceased). Therefore, the applicant strongly apprehends that he may be arrested on the allegation of having committed a non-bailable offence in the present case by the investigating agency at the instance of and in connivance with the complainant, who is seeking revenge of the death of her daughter in which the applicant does not have any role.

4. It is further submitted that the applicant is a married man aged about 30 years, currently working as a lead Engineer at Aeris Communication in Noida. The applicant has clean antecedents and is currently residing at the address as mentioned in the memo of parties in Faridabad with the permanent address of the applicant being that of Gannaur, Sonipat as mentioned in the memo of parties. Furthermore, the applicant is also responsible for the care taking and well-being of his wife and premature cesarean baby, born on 9th September 2021. It is further submitted that the mother-in-law of the applicant had severed all ties with her son and his wife, i.e. the deceased, and they both had shifted from Tri Nagar, Delhi to Noida, Uttar Pradesh, and thereafter, no occasion remained for the mother-in-law of the applicant or the applicant to make any kind of dowry demand.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant while placing reliance on Narender Singh Arora vs. State of Delhi, (2010) 173 DLT 244 submitted that the present applicant alongwith his family members are being falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant in order to avenge the suicide committed by the daughter of the complainant. It is further submitted that as opposed to the allegations of the FIR, none of the prerequisite of Section 304B of IPC is made out qua the applicant as there has been no mention of any dowry demands made by the applicant in either the al