Dismissed
Phoolan Devi v. State
Delhi HCBAIL APPLN./1201/2011
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data i s as p er the physical file and no page is missing.
father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. They have been living separatelyat their native place. The other family members i.e. the brotherin-laws and their wives have already been granted anticipatory bail. The allegations against the Petitioner are similar to the allegations against the coaccused who have been granted bail. The son of the Petitioners and the deceased were living a happy married life and were blessed with a 9 month old child when the deceaseddied. The incidenttook place on the 19^^^ May, 2011. All the family members have attendeda family wedding on the 17* and 18* May, 2011 where the deceased was dancing with everybodyelse. She was absolutely happy and had no grievance against the Petitioners. However, after the wedding the Petitioners went to their native place and the husband and wife came back to Delhi. Thus, at the time when the deceased died the Petitioners were not present in Delhi. No complaint about the incidents of demand of dowry alleged had been filed in the past. The Petitioners have three sons who live in three separate floors and enjoy a comfortable life. Thus anticipatory bail be granted to them
BAIL APPLNS. 1200/2011 & 1201/2011 page 2 of 4
\
Santro car even one day prior to the incident when the parties met at the wedding at Firozabad. The deceased stated to her parents that in case the demand of Santro car and Rs. 1,66,000/- was not fulfilled she would be harassed badly. There was a constant harassment caused to the deceased for demand of dowry and hence prayer for grant of anticipatory bail should not be accepted.
deceased and her husband. The Petitioner Rajinder Kumar had been allotted 5 Bigha agricultural land in the year 1995 but he did not till the land and the same was initially given on contract. Thereafter the land was converted as Jungle Dhakka and the land is no more in the name of the Petitioner Rajinder Kumar. The Petitioners have lived in Delhi and it cannot be said that since they were living separately away from the couple, there was no interference in their matrimonial life. Pursuant to the investigation a chargesheet has been filed.
case for grant of anticipatory bail.
^MUKTAGUPTA,J
SEPTEMBER 08,2011 'ga'
BAIL APPLNS. 1200/2011 & 1201/2011
page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners accused of demanding dowry.
Whether the serious nature of dowry harassment allegations justifies rejecting the bail plea.
Shri Sunil Nayak and Smt. Renu Nayak and others
Rs. and Others
MUKTAGUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court