AMIT MAHAJAN (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 456/2024 dated 07.06.2024, registered at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, for offences under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

2. The present FIR was registered on a complaint made by the complainant, who is the mother of the deceased. During enquiry, the statements of the father and brother of the deceased were also recorded.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased had married the son of the applicant in December, 2021. It is alleged the in-laws of the deceased, including the applicant (mother-in- law of the deceased) had demanded dowry from the family of the deceased at the time of the marriage, pursuant to which, ₹10,00,000/- had been given in cash as dowry to the applicant along with other household items.

4. It is alleged that after five months of her marriage, the deceased told the complainant that her husband (the applicant’s son) and his family members were demanding ₹5,00,000/- as they wanted to purchase a car. It is alleged that when the deceased had gone to her maternal home, she had disclosed to the complainant that the accused persons used to beat her for not giving ₹5,00,000/-.

5. It is alleged that the victim also made a WhatsApp video call on 28.05.2024 to the complainant asking her to arrange the amount of ₹5,00,000/- as she was being daily beaten and harassed by her husband and in-laws for dowry.

6. It is alleged that on 31.05.2024, the deceased had sent an audio recording through WhatsApp to her sister Nidhi wherein the applicant (mother-in-law of the deceased) could be heard arguing and harassing the deceased. On the same day, in the evening, the applicant’s husband (co-accused) had called the father of the victim and informed about the death of the deceased.

7. The FIR was lodged on the suspicion that the accused persons were involved in the death of the victim.

8. The pre-arrest bail application filed by the husband of the present applicant – Raja Ram, was dismissed by this Court by order dated 10.07.2024. It was held as under:

“26. It is pertinent to note that the deceased has admittedly died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage in her matrimonial home. The same raises the statutory presumption under Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased who has been specifically named in the complaint. It is also relevant to note that the applicant did not deem it proper to inform about the death of the victim to the investigating authorities despite the unnatural circumstances of her death. The fact of unnatural death was informed to the Police by a friend of the deceased on a PCR call. It was informed that the deceased had marks on her neck.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

32. The ground of parity with the co-accused persons who have already been granted pre-arrest bail is unmerited. While it is true that certain general allegations against all the family members have been made, however, it is relevant to note that the complainant has made serious and pointed allegations regarding incessant demands of dowry and harassment against the applicant and his wife who lived in the same house as the victim albeit on different floors. Moreover, the applicant is clearly the eldest in the family and the possibility of his having instigated the demand of dowry that led to the eventual death of the victim cannot be ruled out at this stage, especially, since the complainant has stated that the dowry articles at the time of the marriage had been given specifically to the applicant.”

9. By order dated 17.09.2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court, after taking into consideration the nature of the case, dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the husband of the applicant against the order dated 10.07.2024 passed by this Court.

10. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant along with her husband was residing on the first floor of the house while the res