High Court High Court dismissed bail applications raising abetment to suicide by mother-in-law and husband in dowry death case.法院拒绝了保释申请，理由是被申请人拒绝调查，骚扰目击者，且有逃避逮捕的风险。
Pre-arrest bail applications for Raj Bala and Pawan Kumar dismissed. Custodial interrogation required.
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.
$~19 & 20
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
Date of decision: 18.01.2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 79/2016 and Crl. MA No. 624/2016 (Exemption)
RAJ BALA ..... Applicant Through Mr. Lal Singh Thakur and Mr. Sudhir Tewatia, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP for the State Inspector Ghan Shyam and ASI Vinok Kumar, P.S. North Rohini Mr. Rakesh Chahar, Adv. for the complainant
+ BAIL APPLN. 80/2016 and Crl. MA No. 625/2016 (Exemption)
PAWAN KUMAR ….Applicant Through Mr. Lal Singh Thakur and Mr. Sudhir Tewatia, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP for the State Inspector Ghan Shyam and ASI Vinok Kumar, P.S. North Rohini Mr. Rakesh Chahar, Adv. for the complainant
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
BAIL APPLN. 79 & 80/2016
Page 1 of 8
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
(b) that the alleged threats which resulted in the victim taking the drastic step were admittedly made by the applicants three-four weeks prior to the date of the alleged incident;
(c) that the threats to kill Ritu if she did not withdraw the cases instituted by her against the applicants herein, which were not withdrawn, cannot be considered to be abetment to suicide;
BAIL APPLN. 79 & 80/2016
Page 2 of 8
(e) that the applicants have no criminal antecedents.
appearing on behalf of the applicants that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and that the applicants, if released on pre-arrest bail shall join investigation and cooperate with the police.
BAIL APPLN. 79 & 80/2016
Page 3 of 8
suspicious circumstance on the 9th of February, 2014. It is further alleged that although Ritu and her husband were married on 24th January, 2005 with great pomp and show and dowry had been given at that time to the applicants by the family of Ritu way beyond their means and capacity, the applicants continuously tortured Ritu during her lifetime for more and more dowry.
BAIL APPLN. 79 & 80/2016
Page 4 of 8
“That, due to repetitive cruelty and harassment to his daughter, complainant was forced to purchase a house for his daughter at Sec-7, Rohini so that she could live peacefully but his daughter’s husband accused Pawan Kumar did not improve his behaviour and continued torturing his daughter. In this regard, a case vide FIR No. 65/13 dated 20.03.2013 u/s 323/314/34 IPC at P.S.Dwarka, Delhi and FIR No. 195/13 dated 14.06.2013 u/s 498A/406 IPC at P.S.- Rani Bagh, Delhi were registered against both the accused persons.
That, it is further alleged that both accused persons came to his house and pressurized his daughter to withdraw the cases registered against them. Due to torture/pressure the daughter of the complainant namely Ritu hanged herself on 09.02.2014.
That, during the course of investigation, the search of accused persons Pawan Kumar and his mother Smt. Raj Bala made but both accused persons are absconding and evading their arrest. On 04.01.2016, NBWs of accused persons have been obtained but they are evading their arrest and not joining the investigation.
That, as per the allegation the petitioner accused persons are continuously threatening the family of complainant to face the dire consequences if case is not withdrawn. The allegations are serious in nature and accused persons are economically sound and can hamper the witness and tamper the evidences. There are high chances of jumping bail if
Page 5 of 8
BAIL APPLN. 79 & 80/2016
granted. Custodial interrogation is required to unleash the chain of incidence.
That, the anticipatory bail application of petitioner accused was dismissed by Hon’ble ASJ Sh. Digvinay Singh vide orders dated 15.12.2015.”
BAIL APPLN. 79 & 80/2016
Page 6 of 8
steadfastly refused to join investigation and have allegedly threatened the complainant with dire consequences.
CBI vs. Anil Sharma reported as 1997 Criminal Law Journal 4417]
BAIL APPLN. 79 & 80/2016
Page 7 of 8
the effect that custodial interrogation is indeed required in the present case.
order are for the limited purpose of deciding the bail applications and shall
not be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
JANUARY 18, 2016 sd
BAIL APPLN. 79 & 80/2016
Page 8 of 8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to applicants charged with abetment to suicide, given their refusal to join investigation and history of threatening the victim's family.
Whether the applicants' conduct disentitles them to the grant of bail in the context of serious charges of dowry death.
Whether custodial interrogation is required in the instant case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State represented by CBI vs. Anil SharmaReferred¶14
State represented by CBI vs. Anil Sharma reported as 1997 Criminal Law Journal 4417
Sarla Devi vs. State of NCT of DelhiDistinguished¶15
Sarla Devi vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported as 221 (2015) DLT 779 · Who else cites this
Hari Gopal Wadhwa & Anr. vs. StateDistinguished¶15
Hari Gopal Wadhwa & Anr. vs. State reported as 143 (2007) DLT 210 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RAJ BALA
STATE OF NCT DELHI
PAWAN KUMAR
STATE OF NCT DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
Parties & counsel
