Dismissed¶14

Sushma v. State/Nct of Delhi

Delhi HC8 Jan 2025BAIL APPLN./4553/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BAIL APPLN. 4553/2024, High Court of Delhi, Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., decided 08.01.2025 — regular bail application under S. 483 BNSS dismissed in dowry death case (S. 304B IPC), FIR 456/2024 PS Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi; applicant is mother-in-law; serious allegations of Rs. 5 lakh dowry demand; charges not framed.

What did the court decide?

The record reveals and substantiates the State's prima facie case that the deceased was being harassed for demand of dowry by her in-laws, including the present applicant (mother-in-law), as borne out by the parents' statements alleging a Rs. 5 lakh dowry demand and the audio recording sent by the deceased to her sister. ¶9

Sushma Vs State/Nct of Delhi — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant (mother-in-law of the deceased), arraigned for offences under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC in FIR 456/2024, is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS.

¶1

Court's answer

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The marriage having taken place on 12.12.2021 and the death occurring on 31.05.2024, i.e. within 2½ years, in the matrimonial home, under unnatural circumstances, and immediately after harassment for dowry demand, the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature; charges are yet to be framed, and at this stage no ground for regular bail is made out.

¶13

Key takeaways

The custody of the deceased's minor female child with the husband's family does not, at this stage, obviate the allegations against the accused persons, and is not a relevant factor while taking a prima facie view on the seriousness of the allegations for deciding bail.ratio¶11
It is conceded that the deceased died on 31.05.2024, within 2½ years of her marriage solemnized on 12.12.2021, in her matrimonial home, under unnatural circumstances, and immediately before her death she was harassed for demand of dowry.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail under Section 483 BNSS refused to mother-in-law of deceased woman in FIR 456/2024 (PS Bhalswa Diary, Delhi) under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC. Deceased married 12.12.2021, died 31.05.2024 within 2½ years in her matrimonial home under unnatural circumstances (post-mortem: ligature hanging; body kept in a freezer). Specific statements of parents alleging Rs. 5 lakh dowry demand and audio/video recordings sent by the deceased substantiated the State's prima facie case of dowry harassment by the in-laws, including the applicant. Charges yet to be framed; supplementary charge-sheet filed against applicant. Custody of deceased's minor child with the husband's family held irrelevant at the prima facie stage. Application dismissed; nothing expressed to be an opinion on merits.

¶1

$~40

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 08.01.2025

¶4

- BAIL APPLN. 4553/2024

¶5

SUSHMA .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Anil Goel, Mr. Aditya Goel and Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Advocates versus

¶7

STATE/NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State with Inspector Arun Dagar, P.S. Bhalswa Dairy Mr. Kameshwer Mishra, Advocate for the complainant.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA JUDGMENT

¶10

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. ( ORAL )

¶11

The present bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter „ BNSS ‟) has been filed on behalf of the applicant, seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 456/2024, registered at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter „ IPC ‟).

¶12

Issue notice. Mr. Manoj Pant, learned APP accepts notice of the present bail application on behalf of the State.

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

BAIL APPLN. 4553/2024

¶15

Page 1 of 7

¶16

Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:1 0.01.2025 16:07:12

¶17

Brief facts of the present case, as borne out of the status report, are that on 31.05.2024, a PCR call was received at P.S. Bhalswa Dairy vide DD No.90A and the same was entrusted to SI Sanjeet, who along with Constable Hariram reached at the spot, where the deceased Pooja (aged about 25 years) was found kept in a cold storage/freezer outside the house. During the course of enquiry, it was revealed that deceased Pooja had got married to Sh. Prince on 12.12.2021 as per Hindu rites and rituals. The dead body of the deceased was sent to BJRM Hospital for preservation for 72 hours. During the course of enquiry, SDM Model Town was informed about the incident, and thereafter, an inquest proceeding under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter „ Cr.P.C ‟) was initiated, and statements of deceased's father Sh. Ram Babu and brother Sh. Manoj were recorded. In their statements, they informed that at the time of marriage of Pooja, they had given ₹10 Lakhs cash to Pooja's in-laws on their demand. They further informed that on 31.05.2024, Pooja had sent an audio recording through WhatsApp to her sister Smt. Nidhi, in which Pooja's mother-in-law Smt. Sushma was heard arguing and harassing her. On 31.05.2024 at about 7 AM, they were informed by deceased's father-in-law Sh. Raja Ram that Pooja had consumed something at night and did not awake today morning and that she had passed away. Both of them suspected that deceased‟s in-laws may be involved in Pooja's death. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted at BJRM Hospital on 01.06.24. On 04.06.24, Sh. Ram Babu gave a written complaint at PS Bhalswa Dairy regarding the demand of ₹5 Lakhs as dowry, made by his

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 4553/2024 By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:1 0.01.2025 16:07:12

¶20

Page 2 of 7

¶21

daughter Pooja's in-law's after her marriage. During investigation, deceased‟s mother Smt. Malti Devi's statement was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C in which she revealed that Pooja's in-laws were demanding dowry of ₹. 5 Lakhs as they wanted to purchase a car. She also stated that on 28.05.2024, her daughter Pooja had made a WhatsApp video call in which she had asked her to make arrangement of ₹ 5 Lakhs by stating that she was daily beaten and harassed by her husband and in-laws for demand of dowry. The husband of the deceased Sh. Prince Rathore was arrested on 19.06.2024. On 21.06.2024, the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court. The anticipatory bail of Sh. Raja Ram was dismissed twice by the learned Sessions Court, vide orders dated 13.06.2024 and 24.06.2024, by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2024 and by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.09.2024. Thereafter he surrendered and was arrested on 25.09.2024.

¶22

The present applicant was arrested on 25.11.2024. Her first regular bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Court on 02.12.2024.

¶23

First charge-sheet was filed against the husband, brother-inlaw and sister-in-law of the deceased. Supplementary charge-sheet has now been filed against Sh. Raja Ram and the applicant Smt. Sushma.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and there are no

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 4553/2024 By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:1 0.01.2025 16:07:12

¶27

Page 3 of 7

¶28

specific allegations against her. It is contended that the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court itself and there is no reason to deny the relief of regular bail to the present applicant against whom same general allegations have been levelled. The learned counsel states that the investigation qua the applicant also stands concluded and no purpose will be served by keeping her in the custody, more so since, she is a senior citizen, suffering from various old age ailments, and having absolutely clean antecedents. It is also stated that the minor child of the deceased is in the custody of the family of the applicants and is presently being looked after by the brother-in-law and sisterin-law of the deceased, and the applicant should be granted the benefit of bail to take good care of the minor child.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned APP for the State, argues that the FIR contains specific allegations of the deceased being harassed by the applicant herein along with co-accused persons for the purpose of demand of dowry. The learned APP also draws attention of this Court to the fact that the accused persons had misdirected the investigation and had also misguided the parents of the deceased, after she had passed away by informing them that the night before she passed away, she was feeling uneasy and had consumed a medicine, but had not informed them about the fact that she had committed suicide by hanging herself. The learned APP further contends that the police had received information regarding there being strangulation marks on the neck of the deceased and the

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 4553/2024 By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:1 0.01.2025 16:07:12

¶32

Page 4 of 7

¶33

deceased being kept in a deep freezer, instead of being taken to the hospital. He also submits that immediately before her death, on 28.05.2024, a video call was made by the deceased to her parents that her in-laws were demanding dowry, and she had also sent an audio clip through WhatsApp to her sister Smt. Nidhi in which Pooja's mother-in-law Smt. Sushma was heard arguing and harassing her.

¶34

This Court has heard the arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties, and has perused the material placed on record. 9. In the present case, this Court is of the view that the record reveals and substantiates the prima-facie case of the State, that the deceased herein was being harassed for demand of dowry by her inlaws, including the present applicant who is the mother-in-law of the deceased. In this regard, this Court‟s attention was drawn to the statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation wherein the parents of the deceased had levelled specific allegations of demand of dowry of ₹5 Lakhs, for purchasing a car, against the accused persons. This Court has also given his considerable thought to the fact that the mother of the deceased, in her statement recorded during the course of investigation, had informed that immediately before her death, the deceased on 28.05.2024 had made a video call to her mother in which she had asked her to make arrangements of ₹5 lacs as she was being harassed and beaten by her husband and in-laws for demand of dowry. The mother of the deceased also stated, and it was also revealed during investigation, that on 31.05.2024, the deceased had sent an audio clip to her sister wherein the mother-in-

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 4553/2024 By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:1 0.01.2025 16:07:12

¶37

Page 5 of 7

¶38

law of the deceased i.e. the present applicant could be heard arguing with the deceased. The said recording was also collected during the course of investigation.

¶39

It is also the specific case of the prosecution that Sh. Raja Ram, the husband of the present applicant and the father-in-law of the deceased, had made a phone call on the day of incident to the parents of the deceased and had tried to mislead them by informing them that the deceased was having some chest pain and anxiety in the night, for which she had consumed a medicine, but she did not wake up the next morning. However, the post-mortem examination report revealed the cause of death as “ combined effect of asphyxia and venous congestion consequent to antemortem ligature hanging ”. It was also revealed during investigation that the accused persons including the present applicant had neither informed the police nor the parents of the deceased about the actual reason for death, which was due to hanging, and in fact, the accused persons had kept the body of the deceased in a freezer by the time the police had reached at the spot. Further, the accused persons had not informed the police about the incident and rather, the information to the police was given by some friend of the deceased.

¶40

The minor female child of the deceased, though presently in the custody of the family of her husband, does not, at this stage, obviate the allegations levelled in the complaint against the accused persons. The learned counsel appearing for the victim, during the course of arguments, stated that the parents of the deceased have also

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 4553/2024 By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:1 0.01.2025 16:07:12

¶43

Page 6 of 7

¶44

filed an application for taking custody of the minor child. However, that is not the relevant factor to be taken into consideration by this Court while taking a prima-facie view about the seriousness of allegations levelled against the present applicant to decide the application for grant of bail.

¶45

Concededly, the marriage between the deceased and coaccused Sh. Prince was solemnized on 12.12.2021, and the Smt. Pooja died on 31.05.2024 i.e. within a period of 2½ years, in her matrimonial home, under unnatural circumstances, and that immediately before her death, she was harassed for demand of dowry.

¶46

At this stage, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature, and the charges are yet to be framed against the accused persons. Therefore, at this stage, no ground for regular bail is made out.

¶47