$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 02.05.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 2497/2018
AMARJEET ….. Petitioner
versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Lochan with Mr. Hemant
Sharma and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar,
Advocates.

For the Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the
State with the SI Prem Yadav, PS Ranhola.

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.180/2016 under Sections
304B/Section498A/Section34 IPC, Police Station Ranhola.

2. Petitioner is the brother-in-law of the deceased. The deceased
committed suicide after three years of marriage. Petitioner was
residing with the deceased and her husband in the same house.

3. FIR was registered consequent to the complaint lodged by the
mother of the deceased that the deceased was being harassed and the

BAIL APPLN.2497/2018 Page 1 of 3
demands for dowry were being made by her-in-laws including the
petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated. He submits that there was no demand for
dowry and the allegations are vague. He submits that on the contrary,
regularly money was being transferred by the husband of the deceased
to the mother of the deceased for her subsistence so there is no
question of any demand for dowry. He submits that money was
transferred regularly starting from January 2014 and continued till the
very last.

5. Learned APP for the State, under instructions from the
Investigating Office, submits that the details of the bank accounts of
the mother of the deceased have been obtained, which shows that the
money was being deposited in the account of the mother of the
deceased off and on from January, 2014. She submits that the money
was routed through a local agent whose statement has been recorded
and who has confirmed that the money was transferred at the instance
of the husband of the deceased.

6. Petitioner has been in custody since 27.02.2016.

7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in
view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and also the
fact that the trial is likely to take some time, I am satisfied that the

BAIL APPLN.2497/2018 Page 2 of 3
petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.

8. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court, the petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required
in any other case. Petitioner shall not do anything which may
prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.

9. Petition is allowed in the above terms.

10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 02, 2019
st

BAIL APPLN.2497/2018 Page 3 of 3