Justice Suresh Kait allowed a bail application for anticipatory bail regarding a FIR alleging dowry death and cruelty. The court held the petitioner entitled to bail based on denial of demand and financial standing, relying on counsel's arguments and precedent.
Petition allowed; petitioner released on anticipatory bail under order dated 29.05.2015.
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.
$~1
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
Judgment delivered on: 1st July, 2015
HIMANSHU DEV ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Vikas Arora and Mr. Dheeraj Manchanda, Advs.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for State.
Mr.S.K. Sharma, Adv. for complainant.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Bail Application no. 999/2015
Page 1 of 7
on 21.01.2006, marriage of this daughter Taruna was solemnized with Vipin Dev Sharma according to the Hindu rites and he had given gifts and dowry beyond his capacity. But the husband and the in-laws of his daughter were not satisfied. After some days of marriage, the husband and in-laws of his daughter started torturing and pressurizing her physically and mentally and demanding dowry for a sum of Rs.5 Lac. When his daughter told them that her family members are not in a position to fulfil the said demand, then her husband and in-laws started abusing and beat her and regularly demanding the above-mentioned dowry.
Bail Application no. 999/2015
Page 2 of 7
Bail Application no. 999/2015
Page 3 of 7
account maintained in Bank of Baroda the balance as on 28.03.2015 was Rs.91,735/- and in the third account maintained in Bank of Baroda, Shahdra Brach, the balance as on 29.12.2014 was Rs.30,000/-. In addition to that, she was maintaining PPF account and two FDRs of Rs.1 Lac each including insurance policy.
Bail Application no. 999/2015
Page 4 of 7
Gujarat 2015 (1) JCC 646 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
13. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the papers including the impugned order, we are in conformity with the opinion and conclusion of the Division Bench of the High Court. The courts are expected to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which the courts are sacredly entrusted with the dignity and authority and an alert judge actively participating in court proceedings with a firm grip on oars enables the trial smoothly to reach at truth. In the present case, the trial court has failed to perform its duties to reach to the real truth and to convict the accused. As observed by the High Court, we are also at pain to notice that the role of prosecuting agency during the trial along with the trial judge appears to be dubious. Besides dying declaration, there was available evidence on record to prove the factum of cruelty and death of Renukaben, but it was not brought on record by the prosecuting agency. Instead, all concerned were in hurry to finish the case in a day. Prosecution submitted a list of 17 documents to be produced and exhibited, but the trial Judge exhibited only four documents and prosecution also did not raise any objection.
Bail Application no. 999/2015
Page 5 of 7
“Anticipatory bail orders should be of a limited duration only and ordinarily on the expiry of that duration or extended duration the Court granting anticipatory bail should leave it to the regular Court to deal with the matter on an appreciation of evidence placed before it after the investigation has made progress or the charge-sheet is submitted. An order of anticipatory bail could even be obtained in cases of serious nature as for example murder and, therefore, it is essential that the duration of that order should be limited and ordinarily the Court granting anticipatory bail should not substitute itself for the original Court which is expected to deal with the offence. It is that Court which has then to consider whether, having regard to the material placed before it, the accused person is entitled to bail.”
Page 6 of 7
Bail Application no. 999/2015
90 of the paper book. There was no complaint whatsoever before the present incident.
SURESH KAIT, J
JULY 01, 2015 jg
Bail Application no. 999/2015
Page 7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in case of alleged offences under Sections 306/498A/34 IPC.
Whether the period of previously granted anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench requires extension or confirmation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Patel Maheshbhai Ranchhodbhai & Ors. v. State of GujaratReferred¶29
Patel Maheshbhai Ranchhodbhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat 2015 (1) JCC 646
Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶34
Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1996 SC 1042 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
HIMANSHU DEV
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
SURESH KAIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
