Anticipatory bail can be granted when there is insufficient evidence against the petitioner, particularly when allegations appear primarily directed at another individual.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest in FIR No.209/2020 dated 20.05.2020 registered at Police Station Seelampur for offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC.

2. Brother (Rehan) of the deceased (Foziya) filed a complaint stating that his sister got married to one Sartaj @ Shahrukh R/o B-1, New Seelampur, near Jama Masjid, Seelampur, Delhi, on 26.01.2015. It is stated that initially everything was fine in the marriage but after four-five months of the marriage, the in-laws of the deceased started demanding dowry. It is stated that several times the mother of the deceased gave money to the in- laws of the deceased without disclosing it either to the father of the deceased or the complainant. It is stated that one Swift Car, 25 tolas of gold, one motorcycle were given by the parents of the deceased to her in-laws as dowry and a good amount of money was spent on the marriage. It is stated that about six months before her death, the deceased had lodged a complaint against her husband Shahrukh. It is stated that the parents of the deceased had taken her back to their home. It is stated that pursuant to a settlement and on an assurance given by her in-laws the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial home. It is stated that 2-3 days before the incident, the deceased gave a phone call to her mother and stated that her husband would kill her and that they should come and take her away. It is stated that on 19.05.2020, at about 4:30 PM, the father-in-law of the deceased gave a phone call to the mother of the deceased and asked to her come and take her daughter away otherwise Shahrukh would kill her. It is stated that the complainant and his family tried to call the in-laws of the deceased but no one picked up the phone. It is stated that on the same day the co-brother of the complainant gave a call and stated that the condition of the deceased, Foziya, was very critical and that she has been admitted to ICU. It is stated that when the complainant and his family members reached the hospital they were informed that Foziya has passed away. On the said statement FIR No.209/2020 dated 20.05.2020, was registered at Police Station Seelampur for offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC.

3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which was rejected by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), North East, vide order dated 20.10.2020. Thereafter the petitioner has filed the instant application.

4. This Court vide order dated 09.11.2020 granted interim protection to the petitioner herein and directed her to join investigation as and when called for by the SHO. Status Report has been filed.

5. Heard Mr. Jitender Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Chadha, learned APP for the State and perused the material on record.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the a perusal of the FIR would show that the allegations are primarily against the son of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the statement dated 02.12.2019 given by the deceased to the police wherein she has stated that her husband, Shahrukh, who is always under intoxication, gave beatings to her and that she was saved by her uncle. It was further stated in the said statement that action be taken against Shahrukh. The learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the said statement was recorded in the Police Station Seelampur vide DD No.4A and the husband of the deceased was arrested. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore contends that the grievance of the deceased was primarily against her husband and the allegation of dowry etc. have been levelled against the in- laws of the deceased after the death of the deceased only to implicate them.

7. Per contra, Mr. Amit Chadha, learned APP contends that the deceased wa