* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 27.08.2019
+ CRL.M.C. 4208/2019
MRS. TABASSUM ….. Petitioner
Through Mr. Kapil Sankhla with Ms. Meghna
STATE OF NCT DELHI ANR. ….. Respondents
Through Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for State.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby
cancelling anticipatory bail and arrest of accused in the case bearing FIR no.
181/2019 registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri for the offences
punishable under Sectionsections 304B/Section498A/Section34 IPC.
2. Petitioner is the sister of victim who committed suicide on
14.05.2019. The present petition is filed on the ground that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the
respondent/accused on factually incorrect and legally perverse grounds.
3. The respondent/accused had failed to join the investigation and was
absconding, consequently, proceedings under Section 82 Cr. P. C has been
Crl.M.C.4208/2019 Page 1 of 7
initiated. The bail has been granted primarily on the ground that the accused
is aged about 67 years and thus a senior citizen.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned ASJ failed to
direct the IO to investigate/ make enquiry on this material aspect and thus
was misled by the accused who filed a false affidavit to the effect to procure
the Anticipatory Bail. Whereas actual age of the accused as per the voter list
is 55 years as on 2019. This fraud has been played by the accused to procure
the Anticipatory Bail which has led to polluting the stream of justice and has
caused gross miscarriage of justice.
5. To strengthen his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner had
relied upon case of SectionLavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi): (2012) 8 Supreme
Court Cases 730 whereby the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that
normally when the accused is absconding and declared as proclaimed
offender, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are
specific allegations against the respondent/accused of cruelty against the
deceased and that fact has been ignored by the learned additional sessions
judge who had granted anticipatory bail.
7. On perusal of the impugned order, learned judge recorded that FIR in
Crl.M.C.4208/2019 Page 2 of 7
the case was registered on 17.05.2019 on the basis of statement of
deceased‟s sister namely Tabbasum recorded by the SDM.
8. As per the FIR, the allegations are that the husband of the deceased
used to subject her to physical beatings as he was having illicit relationship
with his sister in law (Bhabhi) Shabnam and whenever deceased raised
objection, he used to beat and taunt her that deceased had not brought
sufficient dowry in her marriage and used to ask her to bring property and
money from her parents. Even the sister in law of the deceased’s husband
namely Shabnam used to say that if deceased’s husband had married to her
sister, he would have at least got a big car and ₹20-25 lakhs in the marriage.
When deceased informed her mother in law and father in law about relations
of her husband with Shabnam, they did not pay any heed and instead
threatened her not to malign their family’s reputation. There are allegations
to the effect that despite deceased’s parents had given sufficient dowry and
Baleno car in her marriage, her in laws used to ill treat her. After birth of a
girl child to the deceased, deceased was harassed for not giving birth to a
9. In the FIR, the complainant has referred to an incident of 13.05.2019
saying that in the night at 10 pm, her sister Reshma i.e. deceased had
Crl.M.C.4208/2019 Page 3 of 7
telephoned her and informed that “she has a misfortune as whenever she
says anything to her husband he subjects her to beatings and never desist
from his said conduct”.
10. Even on 15.05.2019, when the complainant allegedly received a
phone call from deceased’s husband, she was informed that a quarrel was
going on between deceased and her husband on the issue of Shabnam and
complainant asked deceased’s husband to counsel Reshma and not to quarrel
with each other. After 15-20 minutes of said call, deceased made a call to
the complainant and told her that there was a fight on the issue of Shabnam
and the complainant also heard mother in law of deceased shouting in the
back ‘kyo hamei badnam karna chahte ho’.
11. After recording of above facts learned Trial Court has observed that
on perusing the contents of statement of mother of deceased which was
recorded by the SDM on 17.05.2019, wherein the mother has alleged that
the husband of the deceased used to beat her at the instigation of his mother
and sister in law (jethani). She further alleged that mother in law also used to
quarrel with the deceased on petty issues. Considering the aforesaid
allegations the learned judge opined that cause of quarrel which allegedly
occurred between deceased and her in-laws on the date of her death was the
Crl.M.C.4208/2019 Page 4 of 7
alleged relations of her husband with his sister-in-law Shabnam. The
allegations relating to dowry demand and cruelty raised against the applicant
are vague, general and unspecific. It is further observed that as per the IO,
the husband and the father in law of the deceased are in JC and they had
themselves surrendered before the police on 31.07.2019. Learned judge
further observed that as per the PM Report No.59/129 and the subsequent
opinion given on the same, the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem
hanging and except the ligature mark found on the neck of the deceased, no
other marks of external injuries were found on other parts of the dead body.
Accordingly learned judge had granted anticipatory bail to the
12. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
respondent filed a false affidavit stating therein that the accused is a senior
citizen of more than 65 years of age, though the learned judge has
considered the aforesaid fact while granting bail, however, the same is no
ground. However, it is the statement of the complainant and as per the
allegations recorded in the FIR, learned Judge has granted bail.
13. In view of the above, the case relied upon by the counsel for the
petitioner titled as SectionLavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) is not applicable
Crl.M.C.4208/2019 Page 5 of 7
for the reason that the accused was declared as Proclaimed Offender and
anticipatory bail was granted during the pendency of the same. This court
has perused the order dated 06.08.2019 passed on application filed by the IO
whereby learned Trial Court sought initiation of the proceedings under
Section 82 Cr.P.C against the respondent/accused and other accused
14. Accordingly, it is revealed that learned ASJ was satisfied with the
contention of the application that the accused persons were
intentionally/deliberately evading their arrest. Accordingly, IO was directed
to issue proceeding under Section 82 Cr. P.C and proclamation be published
in daily newspaper i.e. “Nav Bharat Times (Hindi)” and “Hindustan Times
(English)” having circulation in the area.
15. The aforecited judgment by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case because in the
present case the respondent/accused has not been declared proclaimed
offender and, that stage will come subsequently after publication of the same
in the newspaper, specific order shall be passed by the Trial Court declaring
the accused as „Proclaimed Offender‟.
Crl.M.C.4208/2019 Page 6 of 7
16. In view of the above, I find no illegality and perversity in the
impugned order and, accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
AUGUST 27, 2019
Crl.M.C.4208/2019 Page 7 of 7