$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 07.01.2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 3218/2019
DEEPAK JONIA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, Mr. Shrey Sharawat
and Mr. Mayank Punia, Advs.
versus
STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for State
with Inspector Shiv Karan, PS –
Janak Puri
Mr. Vinay Kumar Sharma and
Mr. Prince Sharma, Advs. for
complainant

.CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

CRL. M.As. 43628-29/2019

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applications are disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 3218/2019

3. Present petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.

284/2019 registered at Police Station – Janak Puri for the offences

punishable under Sections 304B/498A IPC and petitioner seeks bail in the

aforesaid case.

BAIL APPLN. 3218/2019 Page 1 of 12

4. The petitioner is a young practicing Advocate and is registered with

the Delhi Bar Association and has been running his law firm under the

nemesis of Lawmen Legum, having atleast three offices across Delhi. The

petitioner has not committed the offence, however, he has been named in the

abovementioned FIR falsely, illegally, erroneously, without any basis and

only in order to harass the petitioner with ulterior motives.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that

after the registration of aforesaid FIR, the applicant surrendered on the same

day and was remanded to judicial custody. The investigation has already

completed and the charge sheet filed on 25.10.2019. The allegations against

the petitioner are vague and vengeful in nature, whereas, the petitioner has

been a loving husband and used to take care of every small need of the

deceased. He worked even on the day of incident in Karkardooma and Tis

Hazari Courts.

6. It is further submitted that the case of the Prosecution is that petitioner

committed the offence of dowry death of his wife as she committed suicide

by hanging herself at around 4:00-5:00 P.M., on 29.07.2019 after 1 year and

2 months of their marriage. The prosecution/investigating agency has been

unable to bring on record any evidence vis-a-vis the essential ingredients of

BAIL APPLN. 3218/2019 Page 2 of 12
dowry death as defined in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The

prosecution has failed to collect even a single piece of evidence which

would suggest that the petitioner did any act of either cruelty or demand of

dowry soon before her death, so as to force the deceased to commit suicide.

7. Case of the prosecution is that on 29.07.2019 at about 8.05 PM an

information regarding committing of suicide by a lady at H.No.C- 4G/112A,

Janak Puri was received at Police Station- Janak Puri vide D.D.N0.87A and

the same was marked to ASI Ashok Kumar, who along with Constable

Sandeep rushed to the spot where dead body of Smt. Sonali Aggarwal, wife

of petitioner herein, was found lying on the double bed. On local enquiry, it

was found that she had committed suicide by hanging herself from ceiling

fan of the room with the help of Saree and it was also made known to them

that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 12.05.2018.

Thereafter, mobile phone of deceased and DVR of CCTV cameras were

taken in police possession.

8. On 30.07.2019, statements of the mother of the deceased were

recorded by the SDM wherein she leveled allegations of harassment and

demand of dowry against the petitioner. Subsequent to the registration of

FIR, the petitioner was arrested on 30.07.2019 and since then he is in

BAIL APPLN. 3218/2019 Page 3 of 12
judicial custody and a thorough search of his house was conducted by the

police but nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession or at his

instance. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not even present at

home when the deceased committed suicide. The petitioner, upon

discovering his house was locked from inside, broke into the house and

found that she had committed suicide. Mother of the deceased stated in the

complaint that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the petitioner

on 12.05.2018, who is an Advocate by profession and they were in a love

affair prior to the said wedding. The wedding was performed with pomp and

show and they paid whatever was demanded from them.

9. Further case of the prosecution is that the deceased left her job after

six months of her marriage and thereafter the petitioner had started torturing

her and he used to say that her father has so much money and he can easily

buy an office for him. Thereafter, the deceased asked her mother that if she

has 2-4 lakh rupees, then give the money to her (deceased) to which she

declined. The deceased visited her maternal home ten days prior to the date

of incident and informed them that the petitioner was purchasing an office

and asked for money. However, the deceased who was well educated told

that she will manage on her own and told her mother not to worry and the

BAIL APPLN. 3218/2019 Page 4 of 12
deceased left from her matrimonial home. But, two days prior to the day of

incident, at around 6:00 pm, the complainant received a phone call from the

deceased and she told her that she was being tortured by the petitioner. The

petitioner used to come from his parents’ house and then torture the

deceased.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that three

prosecution witnesses, who are friends of the petitioner as well as the

deceased and they specifically stated in their statement recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. that there was no other dispute between the petitioner

and the deceased and she never ever made any complaint regarding

behaviour of the petitioner. They specifically mentioned that she was in

depression because she could not qualify her IAS exam after leaving her job.

11. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on

instructions from the IO present in Court states that death has taken place

within seven years of marriage and there are specific allegations regarding

torturing the deceased by the petitioner. In three days, there were 30 calls

received by the parents of the deceased and she stated that petitioner was

torturing her and demanding dowry. Learned APP further submits that the

charges are yet to be framed and material witnesses are yet to be examined.

BAIL APPLN. 3218/2019 Page 5 of 12
Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner may not be granted bail for the reasons

that he may influence the material witnesses.

12. It is not in dispute that the prosecuting agency has recorded

statements of certain independent witnesses (friends of the deceased) under

Section 161 Cr.P.C., who have categorically stated that the petitioner was a

loving and caring husband and the deceased was more than happy being

married to him.

13. Whereas, the investigating agency has recorded the statements and

conducted the investigation in a mechanical manner and despite being

provided the bank account statements of the deceased, the investigating

officer has blatantly refused to make it the part of the charge-sheet, however,

the same was verified in the status report filed in the second bail application,

filed in the Court below. It is also an admitted case of the prosecution that

prior to the wedding ceremony performed on 12.05.2018, the petitioner and

the deceased solemnized their marriage on 27.06.2016 at Arya Samaj

Mandir, Tis Hazari, against the wish of parents, as both of them were in love

since 2008. As per the statements of the independent witnesses namely

Namita Naini and Rahul Paul, it clearly signifies that objections raised by

the family members of the deceased could not deter her from getting married

BAIL APPLN. 3218/2019 Page 6 of 12
to the petitioner as she was in love with him for more than a decade. Parents

of the deceased were so much against the marriage of the couple that the

petitioner was always treated with disrespect which used to cause immense

mental trauma to the deceased.

14. After the marriage ceremony, the petitioner and deceased started

residing separately from their parents and the petitioner purchased furniture

and kitchen wares for furnishing the said house in order to provide the

deceased all the comfort she deserved. The bills pertaining to the said

purchases made by the petitioner were also verified by way of status report

filed by the investigating officer and are also made part of the charge-sheet.

15. Various jewellery articles amounting to 25 tola (250 grams) were also

purchased by the petitioner and his family members which were gifted to the

deceased at the time of the wedding ceremony performed at 12.05.2017 and

the bills of the said purchases produced by the petitioner by way of his

second bail application were also verified by the investigating officer.

16. The case of the petitioner is that after beginning their matrimonial life

together, the petitioner and deceased went on several trips around the globe

and the expenses incurred in the said trips were taken care of by the

petitioner, which is evident from the status report filed by the IO in the Trial

BAIL APPLN. 3218/2019 Page 7 of 12
Court during the hearing of the second bail application of the petitioner. The

petitioner took the deceased on various trips i.e. Singapore, Bali, Indonesia,

Cruise Trip from Singapore-Phuket-Singapore in the month of May, 2018;

Goa in the month of June, 2018; Bangalore and Mussoorie in the month of

July-August, 2018; Dubai in the month of September, 2018; Shimla, for the

occasion of birthday of deceased in October, 2018, Lansdowne in June,

2019 and Khatu Shyam, Rajasthan in the month of July, 2019.

17. Further case of the petitioner is that the agreement to Sell and

Purchase dated 03.07.2019 executed for the purposes of acquiring said

office clearly states that the consideration for sale, i.e. a sum of

Rs.7,00,000/- had already been paid to the previous owner Sh. Sanjeev

Kakkar, the same can also be confirmed vide the receipt made and executed

at New Delhi on 03.07.2019. It is incomprehensible that when the payment

in full and final consideration had already been received by the seller of the

said property, then where was question the petitioner would demand money

from the deceased or her family members 10 days prior to the incident as

alleged by the complainant in her statement recorded by the Ld. SDM.

18. The deceased was working as Company Secretary-cum-Compliance

BAIL APPLN. 3218/2019 Page 8 of 12
Officer at NNRIPL but was not satisfied with her job. She had aspirations of

becoming an IAS Officer and decided to resign from her job in order to

pursue her dreams in furtherance of which she sent her resignation via email

dated 04.10.2017, however, not accepted. She sent in her second resignation

to NNRIPL vide email dated 12.11.2018.09.2018 and was relieved vide

relieving letter dated 28.01.2019 but she continued her preparations for the

UPSC Exams and appeared in the prelim-exam held on 02.06.2019.

19. The deceased was extremely stressed about her performance in the

examination during the entire span of her preparation and became

increasingly anxious while waiting for the results and the answer-key was

released on 26.06.2019. The results were out on 12.07.2019 and the

deceased was not successful, thus, she appeared to be extremely disturbed

and distressed after checking her answer key and while waiting for the

results, when the petitioner, was informed by the deceased about her mental

state and the deceased expressed her wish to get herself enrolled at Vajiram

Ravi Coaching Centre, the petitioner in order to help his deceased wife

realize her dream and made a payment of Rs. 1.60 Lacs on 09.07.2019, even

before the results had been announced. The deceased was regularly

attending the classes from 5.00 pm to 7.30 pm right up to the date of the

BAIL APPLN. 3218/2019 Page 9 of 12
incident. Thus, the petitioner not only extended his full moral emotional

support to the dreams of the deceased but also supported her financially after

realizing that in order to meet her day to day expenses, she would require

money and therefore he worked diligently used to pay her with Rs. 20,000/-

every month without fail. The petitioner supported the deceased and her

dreams in every manner possible inspite of the fact that he was a young

lawyer ensuring that he was putting in extra hours of work every day.

20. The petitioner took a Term Insurance Policy assured by PNB MetLife

for a sum assured of Rs.1,10,00,000/- and a bare perusal of the same reflects

that the sole nominee in the said policy was the deceased.

21. The deceased having made several investments through mutual funds

and the total sum stands as Rs.3,91,488.75/- and even if it is admitted for the

sake of argument that the petitioner was demanding and was torturing the

deceased for fulfilment of the alleged demand, would it not be against the

theme of allegations that a sum of Rs.3.9 Lacs stands in the mutual funds

account of the deceased.

22. The regular transfer of such large amounts of money from the A/c of

the petitioner to the A/c of the deceased and the fact that the petitioner had

borne the considerable expenses qua the coaching centre, the deceased was

BAIL APPLN. 3218/2019 Page 10 of 12
got enrolled into only a few days before the date of the incident, runs

contrary to the prosecutions story of exorbitant demands for the purposes of

purchasing an office soon before death. Thus, the claim for said demand is

not supported by any material evidence put forth, whereas the payment

made to the coaching centre was made mere days after the claims of said

demand. Moreover, she had scribbled details of her day to day life, the said

journal contains the details of how she was coping with stress relating to the

examinations and the results, about how she does not want to visit her

maternal household as it was stressful for her, it further contains vivid

description of how she had a “loving, caring, hot and handsome husband”, a

matrimonial household that she has complete authority over but the

deceased also mentioned about how she was still stressed due to her

aspiration of becoming an IAS Officer.

23. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above and without

commenting upon the merits of the prosecution case, I am of the considered

opinion that the petitioner deserves bail.

24. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to release the petitioner on bail

on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety of

the like amount to its satisfaction.

BAIL APPLN. 3218/2019 Page 11 of 12

25. Before parting with this order, it is pertinent to mention here that

while observing the investigation made by Inspector Shiv Karan (IO), I find

that he has produced all the evidences on record, some are in favour of the

prosecution and some are in favour of the petitioner. Thus, I record in my

order that the IO has fairly investigated the case, which would be subject to

the trial Court. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

26. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
JANUARY 07, 2020
PB

BAIL APPLN. 3218/2019 Page 12 of 12