Allowed

Kaleshwar @ Jai Prakash v. the State

Delhi HC10 Jan 2024BAIL APPLN./439/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a dowry death case. The court relied on the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of non-cooperation to rule that the applicant was entitled to bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail and order for release on personal bond with local surety.

Kaleshwar @ Jai Prakash Vs the State — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 439/2022

¶4

KALESHWAR @ JAI PRAKASH ..... Applicant Through: Mr.Pradeep Rana, Mr.Kartik Gadi, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Aman Usman, APP for State alongwith SI Mahesh

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA O R D E R % 10.01.2024

¶8

This application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail in FIR No.0367 registered at Police Station: Alipur, Delhi under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶9

It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.06.2020, an information was received that the deceased had consumed some unknown substance. Subsequently, the deceased unfortunately died on 14.06.2020. On 11.07.2020 a complaint was filed by the mother of the deceased, alleging that her daughter, the deceased, was married to the applicant, who soon after the marriage started demanding a car from the parents of the deceased. The allegations of physical assaults were also made against the applicant and his family members. It was further stated that though the deceased was working as a security guard to support herself financially, she has been tortured by the applicant and

¶10

This is a digitally signed order.

¶11

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2024 at 12:46:50

¶12

his family members.

¶13

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations against the applicant are concocted later, and that the other co-accused have been granted Anticipatory Bail by the learned Sessions Courts.

¶14

The learned APP for the State submits that the applicant needs to be confronted with the material obtained pursuant to the investigation. He submits that the charges against the applicant are also heinous, therefore, he should not be granted Anticipatory Bail. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. 6. What is relevant is that the allegations in the complaint date back right from June 2010. The FIR was registered almost two months after the date of the incident; the complaint of the mother of the deceased itself being after almost one month of the incident. It is also not asserted that the applicant has not joined the investigation or is not co-operating with the same. Three years have passed since the registration of the FIR.

¶15

Keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 694, and the above facts, the Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to grant of anticipatory bail.

¶16

Consequently, in the event of arrest in relation to the above FIR, the applicant shall be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one local surety of the like

¶17

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2024 at 12:46:50

¶18

amount to the satisfaction of the IO/Arresting Officer/SHO concerned, and further subject to the following conditions:

¶19

(i) that the applicant will join investigation as and when directed, in writing;

¶20

(ii) that the applicant shall not leave National Capital Territory of Delhi without intimating the IO/SHO concerned;

¶21

(iii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, try to contact/influence the complainant or any other witness(s) or tamper with evidence of the case; and,

¶22

(iv) that the applicant shall furnish his mobile phone/landline number and residential address to the IO/SHO concerned and shall keep his mobile/landline phones operational at all times during this period, and in the event of any change of the same, will immediately inform the same to the IO/SHO.

¶23

The Application is disposed of in the above terms.

¶24

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶25

JANUARY 10, 2024/Arya/ RP

¶26

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2024 at 12:46:50

Kaleshwar @ Jai Prakash v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaleshwar @ Jai Prakash v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukul Vs State NCT of Delhi

Kartik @ Kartik Mahajan Vs State of Delhi and Anr.

Soman D/O Balwan Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Arvind Dixit Vs State & Anr.

Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Vinay Vs the State of NCT of Delhi