Sangita Devi vs State on 26 October, 2017

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1812/2017
Order reserved on:15th September,2017
Order pronounced on:26th October,2017
SANGITA DEVI …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra with
Mr. Vishal Kalra, Advocates

versus
STATE ….Respondent

Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State
with Inspector Rajender Singh, Police
Station – Narela
CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.)
the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR
No. 0401/2017, under Section 498A/304B/34 of The Indian Penal
Code,1860(hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’), registered by P.S. Narela,
New-Delhi.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on receiving an
information vide DD No. 85/B that one Kanchan aged 26 years
was brought to the SHRC Hospital on MLC No. 3732/17, who was
declared ‘brought dead’ by the doctors. The deceased body was
inspected by SDM who seized the ‘Chunni and Parde Ki Rod’ from
the spot and further sent the body to Mortuary BJRM Hospital for
post mortem. On request made by the parents of the deceased, a

BAIL APPLN. 1812/2017 Page 1 of 5
board of doctors was constituted. Thereafter, the case was
registered on 15.05.2017 against the husband, Father-in-Law,
Mother-in-Law and Sister-in-Law of the deceased. On 15.05.2017,
complaint was lodged by the complainant/ Pradeep Kumar/ father
of the deceased who stated that his daughter who was 26 years of
age got married to Santosh Kumar/husband of deceased on
13.07.2016; that the mother in law and the father in law of his
daughter were demanding dowry from her daughter on account of
which huge amount was already paid to them; that when the dowry
demands were not fulfilled, they killed his daughter on 12/05/2017.

3. Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
contends that the present FIR filed against the petitioner for
demand of dowry is false and fabricated; that the petitioner got
married on 12.07.2003 and since then she has been staying at her
matrimonial house in Faridabad; that on 12.05.2017, she was not
present at her parental house at the time of incident; that the
deceased was suffering from depression due to unemployment of
her husband and did not want to stay at her matrimonial house in
Delhi; that the husband of the deceased is in judicial custody after
the incident; that on 06.06.2017, an interim bail was granted to the
petitioner and continued till 01.08.2017; that on 11.08.2017,
another bail application was rejected by this court in view of
gravity and nature of offence.

4. The learned APP has vehemently opposed the bail application by
stating that the petitioner has not joined the investigation after the
dismissal of the bail application by the learned ASJ on 11.08.2017;

BAIL APPLN. 1812/2017 Page 2 of 5

that as the petitioner is absconding, various raids have been
conducted but she is still not traceable; that the allegation against
the petitioner is serious and grave in nature, therefore, the present
bail application should not be granted.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.

6. After giving careful consideration to the entire facts, it is found that
in the instant case, the deceased died within 10 months of her
marriage. Admittedly, the deceased was married to the brother of
the petitioner against whom there are allegations of demand of
dowry. The Post Mortem Report stated the cause of death of the
deceased to be ‘Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging.’ Due
to the gravity of the offence and the seriousness of the allegations,
it is necessary in the present case that the police should be given
free hand to interrogate the petitioner rather than protect the
petitioner by an anticipatory bail order. It has been clearly stated in
the Status Report, that the petitioner is absconding and not joining
the investigation since 11.08.2017, on account of which
investigation could not be completed till date. In my view, since
the case is at the threshold and the investigations are underway, it
will be practically scuttling the investigation in case the
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner which will create
hurdles in arriving at the truth.

7. Determining the parameters in granting anticipatory bail in cases of
serious offences. The Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai

BAIL APPLN. 1812/2017 Page 3 of 5
Sheth vs State Of Gujarat Anr reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152
after analyzing the entire law has observed as under:-

“(a) The nature and gravity of the accusation
and the exact role of the accused must be
properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(b) The antecedents of the applicant including
the fact as to whether the accused has previously
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a
court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from
justice;

(d) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to
repeat similar or other offences;

(e) Where the accusations have been made only
with the object of injuring or humiliating the
applicant by arresting him or her;

(f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail
particularly in cases of large magnitude
affecting a very large number of people;

(g) The courts must evaluate the entire available
material against the accused very carefully. The
court must also clearly comprehend the exact
role of the accused in the case. The cases in
which the accused is implicated with the help
of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860
the court should consider with even greater care
and caution, because overimplication in the
cases is a matter of common knowledge and
concern;

(h) While considering the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck
between two factors, namely, no prejudice
should be caused to free, fair and full

BAIL APPLN. 1812/2017 Page 4 of 5
investigation, and there should be prevention of
harassment, humiliation and unjustified
detention of the accused;

(i) The Court should consider reasonable
apprehension of tampering of the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant;

(j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be
considered and it is only the element of
genuineness that shall have to be considered in
the matter of grant of bail and in the event of
there being some doubt as to the genuineness of
the prosecution, in the normal course of events,
the accused in entitled to an order of bail.”

8. In view of the aforesaid settled principles, the facts and
circumstances of the present case and perusing the allegations
leveled against the petitioner, and considering the gravity of
offence, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

9. Observations made in the order shall have no impact on the merits
of the case.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
OCTOBER 26, 2017 gr//

BAIL APPLN. 1812/2017 Page 5 of 5

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *