In anticipatory bail application, Delhi High Court granted protection to petitioner following death of daughter-in-law due to alleged poisoning. Court observed no specific dowry demand allegations against petitioner and issued bail with standard conditions.
Anticipatory bail granted with surety bond of Rs 30,000 subject to specific conditions.
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.
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2663/2018 & Crl.M.A. 35904/2018
HARPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitendra Sethi & Mr. Hemant Gulati, Advs. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. K.S. Ahuja, APP for the State with SI Ranbir Singh, PS New Ashok Nagar.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
The petitioner is the father of Raj Kumar, who was married to Sarita, daughter of the first informant, on 05.12.2012. One male child, now aged about 4 years took birth out of this wedlock. On 14.07.2018, Sarita was taken to hospital by her in-laws with history of consumption of some unknown poisonous substance. She remained unconscious during the period of treatment and died on 23.07.2018 in hospital. Though there are accusations of she having been subjected to homicidal death, there is no material gathered till date to substantiate such allegations.
Be that as it may, in the wake of allegations of demands for dowry and cruelty emanating threfrom, the police has registered FIR No. 372/2018 of police station New Ashok Nagar involving offences under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC. Raj Kumar, husband of the deceased was arrested on 24.07.2018 and has been in custody ever since. Allegations have also been BAIL APPLN. 2663/2018 page 1 of 3
made against Sangeeta, sister of Raj Kumar, who, however, being married and living separately with her in-laws, was admitted to bail by the court of sessions, by order dated 02.08.2018. The application for anticipatory bail of the present petitioner (father-in-law) was dismissed by the court of Sessions, by order dated 04.09.2018 with observations that there are allegations of dowry demand and harassment being meted out on account of nonfulfilment of such demands.
It is pointed out that during the entire period of treatment from 14.07.2018 till death on 23.07.2018, there was no allegation or complaint made of any such dowry demand being the history leading to the events resulting in death. It is at the same time noted that, on 28.07.2017, the deceased had lodged a report with police station New Ashok Nagar which was recorded by DD no. 44 B making allegations primarily against her husband, accusing him of ill behaviour, torture and threats over petty issues. Though she also alleged in the said complaint that money for household expenses was coming from her parental home for the last four years, there is no clarity that such financial assistance was on account of any illicit demands, particularly, on the part of the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances, a case for protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out. Thus, it is directed that in the event of the petitioner being arrested, he shall be released on bail by the arresting officer on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount subject to the following further conditions:-
BAIL APPLN. 2663/2018
page 2 of 3
This order will inure only till the date of first appearance of the petitioner in the event of a charge-sheet being filed on conclusion of the investigation and process being issued against him by the court of cognizance.
The petition stands disposed of in above terms.
Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
R.K.GAUBA, J
NOVEMBER 13, 2018 nk
BAIL APPLN. 2663/2018
page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable for the petitioner's father-in-law despite a deceased wife's dowry death FIR.
Whether there was a case for protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the lack of specific allegations against the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Harpal Singh
State
R.K. Gauba
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
