$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 07.02.2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 3196/2019
SMT NITU @ RITU ORS ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. M.K.Verma, Advocate.
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava,
APP for State with Insp.
R.K.Meera and SI Akash
Deep.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
JUDGMENT

BRIJESH SETHI, J (ORAL)

1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an anticipatory bail

application jointly filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the

petitioners Nitu @ Ritu, Priyanka, Ravi Shankar and Raj

kumari in FIR No. 173/2019 u/s. 302/304B/498A/34 IPC, PS Room

Nagar.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has prayed for anticipatory

bail on the ground that petitioners are innocent and have been

falsely implicated. It is submitted that petitioner no. 1 is 21 years

married sister-in-law(Devrani) of the victim. Petitioner no. 2 is 20

Bail Appl. 3196/2019 Page 1 of 5
years unmarried sister-in-law of the victim and petitioner no. 3 and

4 are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the victim. It

is submitted that the main accused Sachin has been arrested and is in

JC. It is submitted that initially FIR was registered under Section

304B/498A/34 IPC, however, Section 302 IPC was added later on.

It is next submitted that the bail application of the petitioners has

been dismissed vide a common order dated 13.12.2019 on the

ground that allegations against the applicant/accused are serious in

nature and investigation is not yet complete and the custodial

interrogation of the applicant/accused is also required. It is further

submitted that petitioners are responsible persons and have nothing

to do with the alleged offence. There is no likelihood of their

interfering with the witnesses or administration of justice and it is,

therefore, prayed that in the event of arrest, they be released on

anticipatory bail.

3. The anticipatory bail application is opposed by the Ld. APP

for the State on the ground that the allegations against the petitioners

are serious in nature.

4. I have considered the rival submissions. As per prosecution

Bail Appl. 3196/2019 Page 2 of 5
version, the FIR bearing no. 173/19 was registered at Police Station

Roop Nagar, Delhi, on the statement of the mother of the deceased

namely Smt. Longshree wherein she has stated that on 10/07/19, her

daughter Suman was married to accused Sachin and they had given

sufficient gift articles as per their capacity to them. Before 10-15

days of Diwali, accused Sachin had started residing separately along

with victim Suman. It is the prosecution’s version that victim

Suman had informed her husband that she was suffering from

stomach ache, but accused Sachin had not got her treated.

Thereafter, the complainant had also talked to Sachin to provide

necessary treatment to Suman but he refused on the ground that

sufficient dowry was not given at the time of marriage. Thereafter

victim Suman had come to her matrimonial house Narora and

informed her mother that Sachin is demanding Rs.50,000/ for E-

Ricksaw and has been regularly harassing her for the same.

However, Sachin had reached Narora (Deceased’s maternal home)

and took her back to Delhi and again quarreled with her and gave

her beatings as a result of which her unborn child got aborted.

Thereafter, complainant had come to Delhi and asked Sachin to

Bail Appl. 3196/2019 Page 3 of 5
allow Suman to go to Narora to get proper treatment but he had not

allowed it. On 15/11/19, when the complainant called Suman to ask

about her health, she had informed her that she has not been taken

for treatment by Sachin till now. After that the complainant had left

for Delhi from Narora and during journey, Suman had again called

her and informed her that doctors are saying that a Police case is

necessary before providing any kind of treatment and on this Sachin

has threatened her that, first he would kill her and then will face all

the consequences. After some time, mother of Sachin had called the

complainant and said that Suman has done something wrong.

Thereafter, the complainant had time and again called Sachin. After

various calls, Sachin had picked up the call and informed her that

Suman had eaten something and she was unconscious. When the

complainant reached Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital, her daughter

Suman was found dead with a heavy injury on her head. The

complainant has alleged that her daughter Suman was killed by her

husband Sachin and Mother in-laws Raj Kumar, fatherin-law Ravi

Shanker, Sister-in-law (Nanad) Preeti and Priyanka and sister-in-

Iaw (Devrani) Neetu. During the course of investigation sandals

Bail Appl. 3196/2019 Page 4 of 5
(having blood), Shawl of deceased Suman and a piece of stone

(having blood) was recovered from the place of incident and weapon

of offence i.e. Shocker (Iron Rod) was also recovered at the instance

of accused Sachin from park and was seized. As per Post-mortem

report of the deceased the cause of death was cranio-cerebral

damage consequent upon blunt force impact which is sufficient to

cause death in ordinary course of nature. Perusal of the facts reveal

that allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature. They

are involved in the offence under Section 302/304A/498A/34 IPC

for dowry death and harassment. The case is at initial stage of

investigation. The mobile locations of all the petitioners were found

at the scene of crime at the time of incident and custodial

interrogation of petitioners is required. In these circumstances,

keeping in view the facts of the case and also the fact that custodial

interrogation of all the petitioners is required, no grounds for

anticipatory bail are made out. The anticipatory bail application is,

therefore, dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly.

BRIJESH SETHI, J

FEBRUARY 7, 2020/Ak

Bail Appl. 3196/2019 Page 5 of 5