Insufficient evidence in dowry death case justifies bail when allegations primarily target other family members and charges remain unframed.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. By this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 468/2020 under Sections 304B/498A/34 IPC & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered at P.S. New Usmanpur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the FIR and even in the statements recorded under Sections 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC, of the father of the deceased, who is the complainant and maker of the FIR, allegations if any have been levelled against the mother and sister of the petitioner and not against the petitioner. The mother and sister of the petitioner have already been granted anticipatory bail. No overt act or any role has been attributed to the petitioner alleging abetment of suicide. Merely because just before the death, the petitioner and the deceased spoke on the mobile phone, it cannot be said to raise a suspicion that the petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There is no material to show that soon before the death of the deceased, the petitioner subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry. The petitioner has been in custody for more than one year and till date, even the charges have not been framed.

3. Learned APP for the State submits that immediately after the incident though a detailed statement was not given by the father of the deceased, however, subsequently, he made a detailed statement wherein he leveled allegations against the petitioner. Further, the conduct of the petitioner by making a phone call to the deceased soon before she committed suicide itself shows the conflict going on between the petitioner and the deceased which instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Learned APP further states that there are allegations of demand of dowry at the time of marriage and hence, no bail be granted to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant supplementing the arguments of learned APP for the State contends that immediately on the death of his daughter, the complainant was not in a proper framework of mind to give the statement and thus, he could not reveal complete facts and subsequently, on the intervention of senior officers, detailed statement was recorded and the petitioner was arrested. Learned counsel for the complainant also refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided on 28th May 2021, wherein, it is held that presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is required to be drawn in the case of a dowry death.

5. The above-noted FIR was registered after a PCR call was received vide DD No. 54A on 15th July 2020 regarding hanging of a lady at X-123, Brahampuri, Delhi. On reaching the spot, the PCR official opened the door of the room which was closed from inside and the deceased was found hanging with Dupatta with the ceiling. During enquiry, name of the deceased was revealed as Jagriti who was married to the petitioner on 17th May 2019 and was residing on the ground floor with the petitioner, whereas the first floor was occupied by elder brother of the petitioner. Statement of father of the deceased was recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 16th July 2020, wherein, the complainant stated that he had married his daughter with the petitioner on 17th May 2019. Two months after the marriage, his daughter's mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to trouble her daily for the dowry. The complainant and his elder daughter came to the matrimonial home of the deceased from where they were asked to go away by the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased. On 14th July 2020, his daughter had made a phone call and s