* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 14.03.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 68/2019 Crl.M.B 43/2019 Crl.M.A.
NITIN CHAWLA ….. Petitioner
STATE (NCT OF DELHI ) ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms.Nandita Abrol and Ms.Usha Pandey, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP with SI Dushyant Panwar,
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR NO: 115/16, under Sections
498A/304B/34 IPC, P.S. Defence Colony. Subsequently Section 306 has
been added. Charge sheet has already been filed.
2. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased and they were married on
06.01.2016 and the deceased is alleged to have committed suicide on
3. The allegation is that the petitioner within one month of marriage
had physically assaulted the deceased on account of which she sustained
severe injuries on her face. She is thereafter alleged to have left for her
mother’s house and stayed there for about 8-9 days after which the
BAIL APPLN.68/2019 Page 1 of 4
petitioner along with his family came and took her back.
4. The complainant-sister of the deceased has stated that the deceased
used to inform her mother that the petitioner used to demand dowry.
Further it is alleged that about 10 days prior to the date of death the
petitioner brought a 10 year old boy to the house and disclosed that he was
his son on which, the deceased came to know that he was earlier married
and the boy was his son from the first marriage. Thereafter it is alleged that
the parties used to fight and the deceased was severally depressed.
Subsequently it is alleged that she has committed suicide.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been
falsely implicated. Learned counsel submits that there was never any
demand for dowry and the deceased was well aware of the factum of the
first marriage and the child of the petitioner and knowingly married the
petitioner against the wishes of her family. Learned counsel submits that
there is sufficient material to show that the deceased was depressed and
there is no evidence of any demand or satisfaction of demand for dowry.
6. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has been in custody
since 26.03.2016 and has been released on interim bail on 02.11.2018 on
the ground of severe illness of his mother being the only member in the
family capable of taking care of her.
7. Learned APP opposes the grant of regular bail and contends that
petitioner has been on interim bail, which is being extended from time to
time keeping in view the medical condition of the mother and the petitioner
should first surrender prior to his regular bail application being taken up for
BAIL APPLN.68/2019 Page 2 of 4
8. Learned APP further relies on an alleged suicide note left behind by
the deceased and contends that the said note has already been verified by
the Forensic Laboratory and is in the handwriting of the deceased. Further
it is contended that the mother of the deceased has also stated that there
were demands for dowry.
9. Perusal of the record and the suicide note as also the statement of the
witnesses, prima facie shows that the deceased was upset with regard to the
factum of petitioner having brought his child from the first marriage to the
house and was asking the deceased to vacate the house.
10. The allegation that petitioner had demanded dowry as noticed in the
statements recorded under Section 161 appear to be vague and bereft of any
11. The contention that petitioner is out on interim bail and has to first
surrender prior to his regular bail being considered, in my view is not an
embargo in consideration of the regular bail application. Circumstances for
grant of interim bail and extension thereof are independent of the
circumstances or conditions for consideration of a regular bail application.
The mere fact that an accused is out on interim bail ipso facto does not
amount to a disqualification for consideration of his regular bail
application. Interim bail has been granted to the petitioner on the ground of
severe illness of his mother who is undergoing dialysis and petitioner is the
only male member in the family who is in a position to take care of his
mother. The brother of the petitioner is also suffering from a medical
BAIL APPLN.68/2019 Page 3 of 4
condition of depression since 8 years and the father is aged above 78 years.
12. Petitioner has been incarceration for over 2½ years and trial is likely
to take time.
13. Without commenting on the merits of the case and on perusal of the
records, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of
14. 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. Petitioner shall not contact the complainant
or her family members.
15. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
16. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 14, 2019/rk
BAIL APPLN.68/2019 Page 4 of 4