Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Nirmala Devi - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT ) Of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln No. 1221 of 2021, 1216 of 2021
Decided On : 16-08-2021
Anticipatory Bail - Matrimonial Dispute - Sections 376/354/323/506/34 IPC - [Sections 376, 354, 323, 506, 34 IPC] - The court discussed the allegations of rape, assault, and threats made by the prosecutrix against her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. The court considered the medical evidence and the statements of the parties involved to conclude that custodial interrogation of the petitioners was not required, and they were granted bail.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix alleged assault, sexual assault, and threats by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. The case involved a matrimonial dispute and multiple criminal cases, including a case under the Domestic Violence Act and a case for maintenance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of rape were made after the initial FIR, and there were discrepancies in the statements of the parties. The court noted that the complainant had sent a complaint to the SHO regarding rape, but no FIR was registered. The court also considered the complainant's complaint against the investigating officer for pressurizing her to withdraw the cases.
Issues: The issues involved allegations of assault, sexual assault, and threats in the context of a matrimonial dispute. The court also addressed the complainant's complaint against the investigating officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that custodial interrogation of the petitioners was not required, and they were granted bail. The court considered the discrepancies in the statements and the complainant's complaint against the investigating officer.
Final Decision: The petitioners were granted bail, and they were directed to join the investigation as and when required by the investigating officer.
JUDGMENT
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - By way of this common order, I shall dispose of the petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 70/2021 under Sections 376/354/323/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Hari Nagar.
2. In brief, the facts as per the case of the prosecution are that on 26.02.2021, two PCR calls were received at PS Hari Nagar vide DD Nos.30A & 36A regarding quarrel at WZ-47, Tihar Village, and the same were marked to ASI Niranjan. ASI Niranjan along with HC Jitender No. 1838/W reached at WZ-249, G-47, Tihar Village, Delhi. There it came to know that injured had already been shifted to DDU Hospital by PCR van. ASI reached DDU hospital. There injured prosecutix 'R' was found admitted vide MLC No. 80/21. Doctor mentioned A/H/O physical assault and sexual assault in MLC. The injured was shifted to Safderjung hospital. In Safderjung hospital statement of prosecutix 'R' was recorded in the presence of her father Nemi Chand. She stated that she runs a shop of small articles at WZ 249, G-47, Tihar Village, Delhi. On 20.11.2020, her husband expired due to illness. Her husband was owner of the house in which she is residing. Her mother in law and brother in law used to say that now she has nothing in the house and asked her to leave the house with her child, aged about seven years. It is alleged that a court case is pending between them regarding the house and the Court has granted stay. It is alleged that after returning to home, her mother-in-law Nirmala Devi, brother-in-law - Anil @ Shanti and another brother-in-law - Mukesh@ Bunty told her that there was no need to be more happy and threatened to kill her. It is alleged that on 25.02.2021, at about 10.30 AM, while prosecutrix was going downward from 3rd floor, in the middle of stairs, Mukesh @ Bunty met her and asked her whether she was going to open the shop and threatened to kill her. It is alleged that when the prosecutrix was cleaning the shop, her mother-in-law came inside and started throwing articles of her shop and told her to get out with her son. Thereafter, arguments started between them and her mother-in-law started beating her. It is alleged that in the meanwhile, her brother-in-law Anil @ Shanty came inside the shop and hit his hand on her breast and pressed her breast 2-3 times. It is alleged that he hit her with some pointed object and her mother in law was asking to kill her. Her mother-in-law and brother-in-laws kept beating her. Thereafter, her brother-in-law Anil fled from the spot on the direction of her mother-in-law and she told the prosecutrix that she is 70 years old and nothing could happen to her. Thereafter, the prosecutrix called police and she was shifted to DDU Hospital.
3. On the statement of prosecutix 'R', FIR No. 70/21, dated. 26.02.2021, under Sections 354/323/506/34 IPC was registered at PS Hari Nagar. During investigation, on 02.03.2021 statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosectrix was recorded by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court. In her statement, in addition to the facts as stated in the FIR, prosecutrix stated that on 20.11.2020, her husband expired. She further stated in the statement that after the death of her husband, her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-laws threw her belongings out of the house. It is alleged that on 05.12.2020, she had lodged a complaint against them at Police Station Hari Nagar. It is alleged that somehow they came to know about the complaint and when she reached at home, her brothers-in-law, namely, Anil @ Shanty and Mukesh @ Bunty met her at stairs. They both abused her and started hitting their hand on her breast 2-3 times and they said that they would make her prostitute and they would kill her. It is further alleged that they started scuffling with her. Then, she went to 4th floor. On 10 December, Anil and Mukesh came to her flat and Mukesh had consumed liquor. It is further alleged
The main legal point established in the judgment is that custodial interrogation may not be required in cases where there are discrepancies in the statements and complaints against the investigating ....
A petitioner in judicial custody may be granted bail when allegations improve over time and family disputes are involved, but the trial's integrity must be safeguarded.
The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the totality of facts and circumstances, including the delay in filing the FIR, inconsistencies in the victim's allegations, and the pet....
The court's discretion in granting anticipatory bail is influenced by the gravity of the alleged offences and the likelihood of repeated commission by the accused.
The importance of personal liberty and the need to consider the totality of circumstances before denying anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail can be granted keeping in view old age and medical condition of accused.
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
