Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Gagan Kumar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. No. 2459/2021 and Bail Appln. 2778/2021
Decided On : 06-09-2021
Anticipatory Bail - Offences under Section 498A, 304B and 34 IPC - [Section 498A, 304B, 34 IPC] - The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, relatives of the deceased, considering the lack of direct connection to the crime, collection of exhibits sent for analysis, and no necessity of custodial interrogation.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Komal, was allegedly harassed for dowry by her in-laws and subsequently committed suicide. The petitioners, relatives of the deceased, sought anticipatory bail after their applications were dismissed by the Sessions Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no direct connection of the petitioners to the crime, all relevant material had been collected and sent for analysis, and there was no necessity of custodial interrogation.
Issues: Allegations of harassment for dowry, custodial interrogation, and grant of anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of direct connection of the petitioners to the crime, the collection of exhibits sent for analysis, and the absence of necessity for custodial interrogation in granting anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners with specific conditions to be followed, and clarified that the observations made in the order are only for the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail and cannot be taken into consideration in the trial.
ORDER
Subramonium Prasad, J. - These petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C are for grant of bail to the petitioners in the event of arrest in FIR No.353/2021 dated 04.08.2021 registered at Police Station Ranhola for offences under Section 498A, 304B and 34 IPC.
2. Brief facts leading to the present petitions are as under:
a) On 03.06.2021, a PCR call was received at Police Station Ranhola which was registered vide DD No 73. The caller identified himself as the husband of the deceased and a resident of H.No A-91,Sainik Enclave, Mohan Garden Tiranga Chowk. Police reached the place of incident and made enquiry. On 04.06.2021, the mother of the deceased, Smt. Usha w/o Sh. Subhash Chand R/o H. No. 1029, Gali No. 30, Sant Nagar Burari, New Delhi gave a complaint to the SDM Dwarka. On the direction of SDM, FIR No. 353/2021 was registered at Police Station Ranhola for offences under Sections 304B/498B/34 IPC.
b) It is stated by the complainant that her daughter, Komal, got married to one Nitesh S/o Late Sh. Madanlal Kashyap R/o 92A, Sec-3 Sainik Enclave, Mohan Garden, Delhi on 15.03.2021, as per Hindu rituals. It is stated that at the time of marriage, dowry articles were given by them according to their capacity. It is stated that Nitesh had refused to take the Motorcycle which was given to him as he did not like the same. It is stated that after one month of marriage, Komal (deceased) told the complainant that her mother-in-law, Smt. Meena Devi, is torturing her for not bringing dowry as per their expectations. It is stated that Komal also told the complainant that she is pregnant. It is stated that after Komal's in-laws forced her to bring an air conditioner from her father they had given Rs. 30,000/- to them for purchase of air conditioner, so that their daughter can live happily in her in-law's house. It is further stated that Komal told the complainant that her sister-in-law, Shalini (petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 2778/2021) and her husband, Gagan (petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 2459/2021), also tortured her for the demand of dowry. It is further stated that the deceased was not given good quality food. It is stated that the deceased called the complainant and told her that her husband, her mother-in-law, her sister-in-law (petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 2778/2021) and the husband of her sister-in-law (petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 2459/2021) are torturing/harassing her for demands of dowry. It is further stated that the deceased committed suicide due to this torture.
c) During the course of investigation exhibits were collected and seized. On 05.02.2021 post mortem of the deceased was got conducted at DDU Hospital and during the course of post-mortem viscera, clothes of deceased and blood sample were preserved by the doctor.
d) On 05.06.2021, statement of the father of the deceased was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C in which he alleged that when the deceased came back to her parental house after 10 days of her marriage, she told him that the petitioners herein and the mother-in-law of the deceased taunted her for not bringing sufficient dowry i.e, ear-rings for mother-in-law & sister-in-law (petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 2459/2021) and gold chain for brother-in-law (petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 2778/2021). On 05.06.2021 the husband of the deceased was arrested. On 19.06.2021, Post mortem report of deceased was received from Mortuary DDU hospital in which reason of death has been kept pending till receipt of FSL result. Viscera of the deceased have been deposited with FSL for analysis & expert opinion.
e) The petitioners approached the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, vide order dated 26.06.2021 dismissed the said applications.
f) Thereafter the petitioners have filed the instant applications for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
3. Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Chadha, learned APP appearing for the State and perused
Grant of anticipatory bail based on lack of direct connection to the crime, collection of exhibits sent for analysis, and absence of necessity for custodial interrogation.
The main legal point established is that the grant of anticipatory bail is based on the lack of evidence and necessity for custodial interrogation, considering the specific circumstances of the case.
The main legal point established is the careful consideration of the nature of accusations, antecedents of the accused, and the possibility of tampering with witnesses in granting anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail can be granted when there is insufficient evidence against the petitioner, particularly when allegations appear primarily directed at another individual.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of discretion in granting anticipatory bail based on the specific allegations and individual circumstances of the petitioners.
The court upheld the gravity of dowry death allegations as justifiable grounds to deny anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail is granted when allegations are general, omnibus, and lack specific overt acts against the petitioners.
Anticipatory bail under Section 438 should be granted sparingly, especially in serious offences, considering potential risks and the necessity for thorough investigation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
