Jai Kumar v. State

$~40

• IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

• • BAIL APPLN. 277/2018

JAI KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Jagat Rana, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Ms.Radhika Kolluru, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG O R D E R % 10.05.2018

1. The petitioner seeks regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.258/2013 registered under Sections 302/304B/498A/120B/34 IPC at PS Nangloi. Status report is on record.

1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Petitioner’s counsel urged that the petitioner is the victim’s brother-in-law (Jeth) and is in custody since 02.08.2013. He along with his family members was residing separate and had nothing to do with the matrimonial affairs of the victim. Earlier, he was granted interim bail and there are no allegations of its misuse. Relying upon the testimony of PW-7 (Vijay), it was urged that the petitioner was not present at the crime spot. Bail is opposed by the learned APP.

1. There are serious allegations against the petitioner and co-

Page 1 of 2

accused persons whereby the victim was done to death by cutting her neck by a sharp weapon at her residence. The prosecution witnesses related to the victim have been examined and in their testimonies, they have been implicated the petitioner and others for causing mental and physical harassment to the deceased on account of dowry demands before death. It is relevant to note that earlier also the petitioner had filed Bail Application 859/2014 and opted to withdraw it on 18.11.2015. There is no substantial change of circumstances to consider the second bail application somewhat on similar grounds. Pertinent to note is that the information about the incident was conveyed by the petitioner as recorded in the PCR form. It further records that the information conveyed was that a girl had committed suicide. Apparently, incorrect information was conveyed to mislead the police by the petitioner.