IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Shobha – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
Bail Appln. 42 of 2022
Decided On : 03-02-2023
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Jurisprudence - Section 438 Cr. P.C. - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - 304B/34 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 304B/34 IPC. The charge sheet had been filed against the husband and father-in-law, and the petitioner was not arrested but was under investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the principles of granting anticipatory bail, emphasizing that it should be granted when convinced that the person would not misuse their liberty. The court also highlighted the discretion and caution required in exercising the power under Section 438 Cr. P. C.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations against the petitioner, the nature of the investigation, and the conditions for granting anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the basic rule of criminal jurisprudence as bail and not jail, and the need for careful exercise of discretion in granting anticipatory bail. It also considered the rights under Article 21 and the consequences of arrest.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with specific conditions related to cooperation in the investigation, non-inducement, providing mobile numbers, dropping a PIN on Google map, and intimating changes in residential address or mobile number.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--The present application has been moved under Section 438 Cr. P.C. seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 764/2021 under Section 304B/34 IPC registered at PS Burari. The said FIR was lodged by Smt. Sevti, i.e. mother of the deceased on 12.09.2021.
2. Learned APP for the State submits that the charge sheet in the present case has already been filed against the husband and the father-in-law. Learned APP for the State submits that since the petitioner herein has not been arrested, the investigation against her is still continuing and the supplementary charge sheet shall be filed.
3. During the course of the hearing, learned APP for the State on the basis of the instructions received from the IO states that the only allegations against the petitioner herein has appeared in the statement of Vinod Kumar recorded on 12.09.2021. In his statement Vinod Kumar stated that the deceased had told him on the telephone that on 17.02.2021, her mother-in-law i.e. the petitioner herein had beaten her and told her that "we robbed you cheaply as we would like, what will you guys do."
4. The attention of this Court has also been invited to an earlier order passed by this Court on 13.01.2022 which reads as under;
"The status report dated 10.1.2022 under Signatures of the SHO Police Station Burari has been submitted.
On behalf of the applicant it has been submitted that there were only omnibus allegations levelled against the applicant and that the applicant is not at all in any manner involved in the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 304B/498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 qua the deceased.
It has inter alia been submitted on behalf of the applicant that even as per the status report that has been submitted by the State, the only allegations against the application are to the effect that on 17.2.2021 the applicant, the mother-in-law of the deceased had beaten the deceased and had also scolded her for not bringing sufficient dowry articles submitting thus that the same were insufficient to bring forth any proximity qua the alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with no act attributed against the applicant.
On behalf of the State, the learned AFP for the State has placed reliance on the status report and the statements of witnesses that have been recorded i.e. Vinod Kumar, the brother of the deceased and of Sewati, the mother of the deceased.
Without any observations on the merits or demerits of the trial or the averments that have been made in the said statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in as much as the statement of Vinod the brother of the deceased makes specific reference to a call received on 17.2.2021 by him from his sister, the deceased, with allegations being levelled by the deceased against the applicant herein, coupled with assertions made in the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 by the mother of the deceased that on 11.9.2021 at about 11 a.m. the deceased had telephoned her mother that she was being harassed and assaulted for dowry demands by all persons there and that if the mother wanted to save the deceased she should send her brother to her home which is on which date the deceased is alleged to have committed suicide, in these circumstances, it is considered essential that the CDR details of the alleged calls between the deceased and Vinod, her brother, on 17.2.2021 and the call dated 11.9.2021 between the deceased and her mother at around 11 a.m. be verified by the State before proceeding further. The matter is directed to be renotified for the date 10.2.2022."
5. In pursuance of the order dated 13.01.2023, this Court vide order dated 14.03.2022, directed the State to place on record the location qua the CDR details that have been submitted both for the date i.e. 11.09.2021and the call dated 17.02.2021.
6. Learned APP for the State submits that as per the status report, on
The main legal point established is the careful exercise of discretion in granting anticipatory bail, emphasizing the principles of not misusing liberty and considering the consequences of arrest.
Anticipatory bail can be granted if there are no specific allegations against the applicant, ensuring the right to a fair trial and evidentiary support for accusations.
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.
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 absence of injury marks in the postmortem report and the lack of commenting upon the merits of the case were crucial in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.