SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Chandrawati vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 11 June, 2018

+ BAIL APPL. 1377/2018
CHANDRAWATI …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Joginder Tuli, Mr. Ashu Kumar
Sharma, Ms. Joshini Tuli, Ms. Sabita
Rana and Ms. Divya Jangid, Advocates.
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ….Respondent

Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the



1. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 read with
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking
grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 150/2018 under Sections
304B/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police
Station – Anand Parbat.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on receiving the D. D. No. 43A
dated 27.05.2018, ASI Chander Pal along with other police
officials reached at the spot i.e. House No. 52/37A, Gali No. 16,
Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi and found a lady namely Hemlata
W/o Sandeep Kumar hanging; that during search of room a suicide
note was found stating that ‘Mein Hemlata Iss Zindagi Se
Pareshan Hokar Yeh Kar Rahi Hoon. Meri Wajah Se’; that on the
complaint of mother of the deceased Smt. Kamlesh W/o Shri Jai
Kishan alleging that husband and in-laws of the deceased used to

BAIL APPL. 1377/2018 Page 1 of 3
beat and harass her daughter for want of dowry, FIR in the instant
case was got registered.

3. Mr. Tuli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended
that the petitioner being innocent is implicated in a false and
frivolous case; petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and
suffering from various old age illnesses; that the suicide note does
not mention the name of the petitioner; that the petitioner was not
in town at the relevant time; that the alleged demand of dowry was
for use of co-accused (husband of the deceased) and the petitioner
cannot be held guilty for the same.

4. Ms. Roshini Chauhan, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and
submitted that the complainant specifically named the petitioner in
her complaint; that the petitioner various raids conducted but the
petitioner is evading her arrest.

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

6. Admittedly, the deceased died within seven years of her marriage.

The complainant has categorically stated in her complaint that the
petitioner and husband of the deceased, who is in judicial custody,
tortured the deceased physically as well as mentally for want of
dowry, which led the deceased to commit suicide. It is also
pertinent to mention that other family members i.e. father-in-law,
brother-in-laws and sister-in-law were also residing at the same
place, but no allegations were made against them.

BAIL APPL. 1377/2018 Page 2 of 3

7. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the present case and gravity
of the allegations made against the petitioner, I do not find
sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this

8. Accordingly the present application stands dismissed.

9. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything
observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on the
merits of the case during trial.

JUNE 11, 2018

BAIL APPL. 1377/2018 Page 3 of 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation