Bail Appln.1750/2010

Page 1 Of 3

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: 8^th February 2011

Date of Order: February 23, 2011

+ Bail Appln. No. 1750/2010

%

23.02.2011

Raj Rani

...Petitioner

Versus

State

...Respondent

Counsels:

Mr. Kirti Uppal, Mr. R.S. Malik and Dr. R.S. Tehlan and Mr. Surya for petitioner.

Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

ORDER

1. This application for bail has been made on behalf of the petitioner who is mother-

in-law of the deceased and is facing trial under Sections 498A/304B Indian Penal Code.

The deceased in this case was married to Ramesh on 14^th April 2007. On 16^th November

2009, an information was received that she was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital after

consuming poison. She did not leave behind a dying declaration. The statement of father

of the deceased was recorded and in his statement father alleged that one month after

marriage, in laws of his daughter started harassing her. Once she was beaten so much

that the bone of her nose broke down and his daughter to be operated in a hospital in

Prashant Vihar. He had received information of quarrel from his daughter on telephone

from his daughter that a day before she was admitted in hospital and his daughter

reported that she had been beaten by her in laws and they had again started harassing

2011:DHC:1127

Bail Appln.1750/2010

Page 2 Of 3

her. She had requested him to send his son to his house. However, after half an hour, he

received a telephone call from his damad Ramesh that his daughter consumed poison

and she was taken to Jagjivan Ram Hospital. She was later on admitted to Safdarjung

Hospital. He alleged that in laws of her daughter namely her husband Ramesh, Sasur

Sahib Singh, Sash Raj Rani, Nanand Manju and Nandoi Kuku, Anil, elder brother of her

husband used to harass his daughter for dowry. A case under Section 498A/304B IPC

was registered against all the persons.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner/ applicant that in the initial

statement made to Executive Magistrate complainant i.e. father of the deceased had not

alleged any harassment meted out to his daughter on account of dowry or any cruelty

being meted out to her soon before her death. It is only later on in his statement under

Section 161 Cr.P.C recorded after many days that father made vague allegations against

every member of the family under Sections 498A/304B IPC. He submitted that in view of

these vague and general allegations against every member of the family of the husband

including married sister who were living separate, the learned Sessions Judge granted

anticipatory bail to the married sisters, their husbands and brother in law and father in

law. He submits that mother in law was denied bail only because she was mother in law.

He further submits that the allegations against mother in law were the same as the

allegations against other family members and being a mother in law is not a crime in

itself and on the ground of parity, the bail should be granted to the present applicant.

3. On the other hand, learned APP has submitted that the unnatural death in this

case had taken place about two and half years of the marriage. The deceased left

behind a child of about two years of age and there is statement of father of the deceased

that she was beaten on the same day as also four days prior to the incident. He further

submits that the parents of the deceased have been examined in the court and they

have supported the case of the prosecution.

2011:DHC:1127

Bail Appln.1750/2010

Page 3 Of 3

4. It is an undisputed fact that the allegations of harassment on account of dowry

demand