Bail Appl. Nos.1601 & 1602/2011 Page 1 of 7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

BAIL APPL. NO.1601/2011

BAIL APPL. NO.1602/2011

Date of Decision : 05.12.2011

BAIL APPL. NO.1601/2011

SANGITA

…… Petitioner

Through: Mr.N.Hariharan, Adv.

Versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI

…… Respondent

Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP

AND

BAIL APPL. NO.1602/2011

LAVESH

…… Petitioner

Through: Mr. N.Hariharan, Adv.

Versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI

…… Respondent

Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

have gone through the record.

2011:DHC:6229

Bail Appl. Nos.1601 & 1602/2011 Page 2 of 7

2.

The contention of Mr. Hariharan, the learned counsel for

the petitioner is that Sangita and Lavesh are the real

sister and brother of the husband of the deceased. It

has been contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that if one reads the complaint lodged by Smt.

Veena, W/o Hira Lal, R/o 3634, Raigerpura, Delhi,

mother of the deceased, which has been converted into

an FIR No. 259/2011, under Section 498A/304B IPC

registered by P.S. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, there is no

allegation in the said complaint that either of the

petitioners had subjected the deceased to cruelty with an

intention to demand dowry. It has been stated that the

name of Lavesh was not at all mentioned in the

complaint. So far as the sister-in-law/Sangita is

concerned, the only allegation against her is that she

used to taunt the deceased and trouble her. There was

no specific allegation against her that there was a

demand of dowry. It has been contended by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that both the sister and the

2011:DHC:6229

Bail Appl. Nos.1601 & 1602/2011 Page 3 of 7

brother of the husband of the deceased were living

separately. It has also been stated by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that it has been laid down by

this Court that in order to make out a prima facie offence

under Section 304B, IPC, there must be a linkage

between the demand of dowry and the resultant death of

the

deceased.

In

case,

the

link

is

missing

the

presumption cannot be drawn and the petitioner is

entitled to grant of anticipatory bail.

3.

I have gone through the judgments cited by the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

4.

The learned APP has vehementally contested the prayer

for grant of bail on the ground that the deceased had

allegedly committed suicide after about one year and

eight months and further she was pregnant at the time

when she had taken her life. It has been stated that the

FIR which has been registered on the basis of a

complaint filed by the mother of the deceased is not

2011:DHC:6229

Bail Appl. Nos.1601 & 1602/2011 Page 4 of 7

supposed to be an encyclopedia. The police during the

course

of

the

investigation

has

recorded

the

supplementary statement of Hira Lal, father of the

deceased, the neighbour of the deceased near the

matrimonial

home

as

well

as

the

supplementary

statement of the complainant/mother of the deceased. It

has been stated that on the basis of these supplementary

statements, it has been clearly made out that as far as

both the petitioners are concerned, there was a definite

allegation against them. They had subjected the

deceased to cruelty with a view to demand dowry right

from the date of marriage and also immediately before

the date of the death.

5.

The learned APP has contended that it has come in the

supplementary statement that Lavesh was declared

successful in the draw of lot