—
Delhi High Court
Himmat Singh vs The State (N.C.T Of Delhi) on 12 February, 2024
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 12th February, 2024
+ BAIL APPLN. 2955/2022
HIMMAT SINGH ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Mr.
Sunny Sharma, Advs.
versus
THE STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI) ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the
State with Insp. Ravi
Kumar, PS Alipur, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in FIR
No. 929/2021 dated 20.11.2021 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Alipur.
2. The FIR was registered on a complaint given by one Aver
Singh, father of the deceased who alleged that his daughter, got
married to the applicant on 29.04.2017, and is a victim of dowry
death.
3. The complainant alleged that his daughter was subjected to
cruelty by the applicant and his family members. It was alleged
that the applicant and his family members demanded a sum of
₹5,00,000/- along with a car from the complainant.
Signature Not Verified4. It is alleged that a period of four years had passed, since the
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2955/2022 Page 1 of 8
By:HARMINDER KAUR
Signing Date:17.02.2024
17:55:35
marriage and, the applicant and his family members still used to
threaten the complainant that the applicant will divorce his
daughter. The complainant had also alleged that, he did not even
speak to his daughter (deceased) for the past three and a half
months, as the same was not allowed by the present applicant and
one day when the complainant tried to reach out, the applicant
picked the call and said that he doesn’t wish to keep any ties with
the complainant and his family.
5. The complainant also stated that about fifteen days prior to
the incident he along with some close relatives visited to the house
of the applicant where the mother of the applicant – co accused
Beermati, alleged to have stated to the deceased, that your father
has given nothing and go back with your father, after which the
complainant consoled his daughter in order to save her marriage
and left her at her matrimonial home.
6. It is further alleged that after the said day the complainant
had no contact with the deceased, nor had any information about
her until 19th November, 2021- the date of the alleged incident. It
was alleged that deceased’s sister received a call from the
applicant in the morning of 19.11.2021 stating that he had beaten
the deceased, and the same evening she received a call from the
sister-in-law of the applicant stating that the deceased has been
admitted in the hospital. While the complainant and family
members were on the way to the hospital, the complainant
received a call from Alipur Police Station stating that his daughter
has expired because of poison consumption.
7.
Signature Not Verified
The investigation in the present case is complete and the
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2955/2022 Page 2 of 8
By:HARMINDER KAUR
Signing Date:17.02.2024
17:55:35
chargesheet has already been filed. It is informed that the charges
against the applicant have also been framed on the last date of
hearing before the learned Trial Court.
8. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant was arrested on 26.11.2021. He submits that the
investigation, in the present case, is long over and no purpose
would be served by keeping the applicant in further custody.
9. He submits that the trial in the present case is likely to take
time since only charges have been framed till date and there is no
hope that the trial will get over in the near future.
10. He submits that the deceased had a miscarriage in the month
of November 2021, and since then she was not keeping good
mental health and was deeply saddened and depressed and had
often told the applicant that she had lost all hope in life and doesn’t
wish to live anymore.
11. He submits that as per the allegations as levelled in the FIR
the complainant has stated that his daughter was given beating’s
whereas the post mortem report dated 20.11.2021 notes that there
were no external injuries on the body of the deceased.
12. He submits that the co-accused persons (father and mother
of present applicant) had also given a prior complaint dated
21.10.2019 at the police station Alipur due to ill-treatment and
torture caused by the deceased and it was stated in the complaint
that the complainants (mother and father of the applicant) have
severed all their ties with the present applicant and the deceased
and have started to reside separately. Both the mother and father
of the applicant – co-accused person, were granted bail by this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2955/2022 Page 3 of 8
By:HARMINDER KAUR
Signing Date:17.02.2024
17:55:35
court by separate orders both dated 17.05.2022.
13. He further submits that the applicant also has a four years
old daughter who is presently living with his sister and the present
situation is causing hardship upon the family. He submits that the
applicant was also released on interim bail pursuant to order dated
25.09.2023, passed by this Court and has not misused the liberty.
14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state has
opposed the grant of present bail application
15. He submits that during the course of investigation the
statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C,
wherein the witnesses have corroborated the allegations as stated
by complainant.
16. He further submits that there are allegations for a demand
of Rs.5,00,000/- and a car against the present applicant and his
family members.
17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
18. Section 304B of IPC reads as under:
“304B. Dowry death
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused
by any burns or bodily injury or occurs
otherwise than under normal
circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before
her death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative
of her husband for, or in connection with,
any demand for dowry, such death shall be
called “dowry death”, and such husband
or relative shall be deemed to have caused
her death. Explanation.–For the purpose
of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the
Signature Not Verified same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2955/2022 Page 4 of 8
By:HARMINDER KAUR
Signing Date:17.02.2024
17:55:35
Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than seven years
but which may extend to imprisonment for
life.”
19. It is not denied no external injury is recorded in the post
mortem report and prima facie, at this stage there is no material on
record to allege that there was any demand of dowry, prior to the
alleged incident. No material has been brought on record, at this
stage, to show that the applicant was subjected to cruelty soon
before her death, for the purposes of demand of dowry.
20. The fact that the call was made by the applicant to the
relative of the complainant, stating the he had beaten the deceased
being corroborated by the CDR showing that the call, in fact was
made, at this stage, does not show that the call was made for the
purpose as alleged and the same would be seen during the trial.
21. The allegations are made that the applicant and his family
members demanded a sum of ₹5,00,000/- along with a car.
However, no time has been mentioned and the demand, at this
stage, appears to have been made much prior to the alleged
incident.
22. The basic ingredient to attract the provisions of Section
304B, IPC, is, firstly, that the death of the woman should have
occurred under circumstances which are not normal. The
conviction, by applying the provisions of Section 304B, IPC, is
essentially based on the presumption that would necessarily mean
that circumstances which are not normal or essentially the one
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2955/2022 Page 5 of 8
By:HARMINDER KAUR
Signing Date:17.02.2024
17:55:35
where the reason of death is not ascertained.
23. The law presumes that deaths which are not normal, if had
happened within seven years of the date of marriage and the victim
was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry
made before her death would be termed as dowry death. The
deceased stated to have consumed some poison.
24. The presumption in law of a ‘dowry death’ is meant to act
as a deterrent to the demand of dowry and to ensure that there is
no victimization because of that. The allegations levelled against
the applicant will be tested in trial and at this stage considering an
application for bail only the parameters enshrined in that regard
are to be considered.
25. In Savita v. State of Delhi: (2019) 10 SCC 29, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court granted Bail to the accused charged for offences
under Sections 498-A and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
considering that the accused had already been in jail for 27 months
out of a total sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
26. The applicant was arrested on 26.11.2021, the chargesheet
has already been filed and the case is pending at the stage of
prosecution evidence. The charges against the applicant would be
tested at the time of trial. It is also not denied that the applicant has
a four year old daughter to be taken care of.
27. At this stage, when the applicant has already spent more
than 700 days in judicial custody, the investigation is already
complete and the charge sheet has already been filed, there is no
chance of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail.
Moreover, the same can also be taken care of by putting
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2955/2022 Page 6 of 8
By:HARMINDER KAUR
Signing Date:17.02.2024
17:55:35
appropriate conditions. No apprehension can be raised about the
witnesses being influenced.
28. The object of Jail is to secure the appearance of the accused
during the trial. The object is neither punitive nor preventive and
the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment.
The applicant cannot be made to spend the entire period of trial in
custody specially when the trial is likely to take considerable time.
The presence of the accused can be secured at the time of trial by
putting appropriate conditions.
29. Without commenting further on the merits of the case,
keeping the facts and circumstances in mind and the fact that the
trial is likely to take some time, I am satisfied that the applicant
has made out a case for grant of regular bail.
30. The applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail
on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- (rupees One Lakh
only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of
learned Trial Court / Duty Metropolitan Magistrate on the
following conditions:
a. He shall under no circumstance leave the country
without the permission of the learned Trial Court;
b. He shall appear before the learned Trial Court on
every date of hearing;
c. He shall join and cooperate in case required for
further investigation;
d. He shall not, in any manner, try to contact any of the
witnesses;
Signature Not Verified
e. He shall upon his release provide his mobile number
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2955/2022 Page 7 of 8
By:HARMINDER KAUR
Signing Date:17.02.2024
17:55:35
to the investigating officer/SHO which shall be kept
in working condition at all times.
31. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/ complaint
lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek
redressal by filing an appropriate application for cancellation of
bail.
32. It is clarified that the observations made in the present order
are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application, and
should not influence the outcome of the Trial. The said
observations should not be taken as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.
33. The present application is allowed in the aforementioned
terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
FEBRUARY 12, 2024
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2955/2022 Page 8 of 8
By:HARMINDER KAUR
Signing Date:17.02.2024
17:55:35
