* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11.05.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 922/2018
MAHENDER SINGH ….. Petitioner
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Pradeep Khatri, Mr Pranay Garg and Mr Karan
For the Respondent : Mr Arun Kumar Sharma, APP.
SI Sonu Ram, PS Aman Vihar.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.830/2016 under Sections
304B/498A/34 IPC, Police Station Aman Vihar. It is submitted that
the petitioner has incarcerated since 10.08.2016 and several witnesses
are yet to be examined.
2. The allegations in the FIR are that the daughter of the
complainant committed suicide. It is alleged that the petitioner along
with the other co-accused harassed daughter of the complainant and
BAIL APPLN. 922/2018 Page 1 of 3
made demands of dowry, consequent to which she committed suicide.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated as none of the witnesses have stated that
any demand of dowry was made directly to them. The allegation in
the FIR made by the mother is that she was told of demand of dowry
by her daughter. It is further submitted that this has not been
corroborated and these are mere allegations.
4. Further, it is submitted that the allegation of the witnesses is
that there was an alleged affair of the petitioner in his office, which is
alleged to have been discovered by the deceased immediately prior to
the day, she committed suicide. In the testimony of the mother
recorded before the Trial Court, she has deposed that she was told by
her daughter that she had visited the office of the petitioner and
confronted him as well as one female friend, which led to an
altercation and subsequently, on the very next day, she committed
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has come out
in the testimony of the witnesses that the money, which is alleged to
have been transferred to the account of the petitioner by the father of
the deceased was not towards dowry but because the daughter did not
have any bank account. In one instance, it was for her treatment when
she was admitted in Hospital.
BAIL APPLN. 922/2018 Page 2 of 3
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said
averment is false, however, even if, the same were assumed to be
correct, ingredients of Section 304B are not satisfied
7. Without commenting on the merits of the case, perusal of the
record shows that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail.
8. In view of the above, the petitioner is granted bail, subject to
petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with
one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
9. Further, it is directed that the petitioner shall not do anything,
which may either prejudice the trial or the prosecution witnesses. The
petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the
Trial Court. The petitioner shall not contact the complainant or her
10. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
11. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 11, 2018
BAIL APPLN. 922/2018 Page 3 of 3