Granting anticipatory bail based on inconsistencies in the statements of the victim and the complainant, the petitioner's cooperation in the investigation, and the lack of evidence of them trying to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - The petitioner has filed the present application U/s 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 132/2020 U/s 307/120B/498A IPC registered at PS Mehrauli, New Delhi.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 12.03.2020, an information was received from Max Hospital Saket at P.S. Mehrauli that patient namely Anisha W/o Zahid Khan was admitted in hospital vide MLC No. 2624/20 after jumping from roof. The said information was lodged vide DD No. 21 A and entrusted to SI Sohan Lal. In the meanwhile, a PCR call was also received that Satbari Village near Biscuit Factory caller's sister has been thrown from roof by the in-laws, the same was lodged vide DD No. 22 A and entrusted to SI Sohan Lal. In the evening, father of injured namely Ali Hassan S/o Marhoom Haji Sunni reached at police station and gave his written complaint against Zahid Hussain, Mau Zakir Hussain, present petitioners namely (Rukhsana, Yasmin, Parvez), Yasin Khan, Sajid and Dilbag alleging that all of them attempted to kill his daughter. It is alleged by the complainant in his complaint that he married his daughter Anissa on 29.03.2015 to Zahid Hussain and in the marriage he gave dowry more than his status, but after the marriage, the said persons started abusing, beating and threatening her daughter to bring more money from her house or else they would kill her. It is further alleged by the complainant that to fulfill their demand he firstly gave Rs. 40,000/- and second time he gave Rs. 50,000 to the said persons but the demand of dowry, abuses, beatings and harassment to her daughter by the said persons did not stop.

3. The complainant further alleged in his complaint that on 12.03.2020, at around 7:30 a.m. his daughter's mother-in-law Rukhsana, Dewar Parvez, Nand Yasmin and husband Zahid Hussain beat her daughter badly and took her to the terrace and threw her in the street from the third floor. According to the complainant, when he reached there he came to know that her daughter was taken to Max Hospital where her treatment is going on. On the above complaint of the complainant, the present FIR No. 132/20 dated 12/03/20 U/s 307/120B/498A IPC was registered at PS Mehrauli, New Delhi.

4. The state was called upon to file the status report.

5. I have heard Ld. counsel for the petitioners, Ld. APP for the State, perused the status reports and the records of this case.

6. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners that petitioner Yasmeen is the sister-in-law and is a 20 year old young unmarred girl, petitioner Ruksana (mother-in-law) is an old lady suffering from various ailments since a long time and has already undergone two surgeries, petitioner Parvez Hussain, Dever (brother-in-law) is a 19 years old young unmarried boy and they all have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further urged by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners that in the investigation it has been established that the petitioners named in the FIR were not present at the spot. He further submitted that the statement of the victim s daughter was recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C in which she has only made allegations against her father i.e. the husband of the victim. He further submitted that the statement of the complainant was recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 07.04.2020 and in this statement also she has not stated that the petitioners were with accused Zahid when she was thrown from the third floor of the house. He further submitted that thereafter statement of the victim was recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. on 20.08.2020 and in this statement she improved her initial version which was given by her on 07.04.2020 and falsely implicated the petitioners. He further submitted that daughter of the victim/injured was with the complainant and his family at the time when her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded, so there was no question of tutoring the child who made truthful deposition before the Magistrate.

7. It is submitted by the counsel for the p