* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 13.03.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 269/2019
KAPIL ….. Petitioner
STATE ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. K. Singhal with Mr. Nishant Bhardwaj, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State.
Inspector Madhav Krishna, PS Nangloi.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
2. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. The deceased expired
after 1 year 4 months of the marriage. The FIR is registered on the
complaint of the father of the deceased.
3. It is alleged in the FIR that after 6 months of the marriage,
petitioner used to harass the deceased and used to demand money
from her. It is further alleged that the deceased had informed her
BAIL APPLN.269/2019 Page 1 of 3
parents that the petitioner used to talk to some girl over the phone.
When they complained to his father, they were assured that he would
mend his ways, however, he did not. It is alleged that the petitioner
was also pressurizing the deceased to give him the entire
compensation that she had received on account of demise of her first
husband. It is alleged that he had taken the entire money from her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated. He submits that the complainant has
already testified before the Trial Court and in his testimony before
the Trial Court there is no allegation that the petitioner had ever
demanded money for dowry from the deceased or her family. It is
submitted that the only allegation is that he had taken the entire
money which was received by the deceased as compensation for the
death of her first husband and the other allegation is that he used to
talk to some girl over phone.
5. He submits that the statement of the brother of the previous
husband of the deceased has also been recorded before the Trial
Court and he has deposed that the deceased had only received a sum
of Rs.2.60 lakhs and half of the compensation amount had been
received by the mother of her deceased husband.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that status report
clearly indicates that a fixed deposit in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- is
still lying in the name of the deceased and is with the prosecution.
BAIL APPLN.269/2019 Page 2 of 3
He further submits that since there is no allegation that the deceased
was subjected to cruelty for demand for dowry soon before her death,
the basic ingredients of Sections 498A/304B are not made out.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner has been in custody since 13.10.2016.
8. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in
view the totality of facts and circumstances and also the fact that the
trial is likely to take some more time, I am satisfied that the petitioner
has made out a case for grant of regular bail.
9. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court, 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.
10. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
11. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 13, 2019
BAIL APPLN.269/2019 Page 3 of 3