$~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