SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Suman Yadav vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 March, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on : March 03, 2017

+ BAIL APPLN. 258/2017
SUMAN YADAV ….. Petitioner
Through Mr.S.K. Kaushik and Mr.Rohit
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ….. Respondent
Through Mr.Ashish Dutta, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
Inspector Roshan Lal, Police Station
Nangloi, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
JUDGMENT

%
P.S. TEJI, J.

1. By this petition filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.) the petitioner
seeks bail in FIR No.285/2012 under Section 498-A/304-
B/302/406/34 of IPC, at Police Station Nangloi, Delhi.

2. The case at hand, is yet another case in which a married lady
took her life in her matrimonial home by hanging herself and that too
within 7 years of her marriage with the petitioner herein.

3. The present case was registered at the instance of Mrs.
Satyawati, i.e. mother of the deceased – Satyam Yadav. It is stated that
the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with the son of the
petitioner on 16.02.2010. The incident in question is of 08.11.2012
when an information vide DD No.13A was received at Police Station

Bail Appl. No.258/2017 Page 1 of 8
Nangloi, Delhi alleging therein that one lady had committed suicide
by hanging herself at House NO.96, Ahir Mohalla, Nangloi, Delhi and
the same was marked to Sub-Inspector Pankaj Saroha for further
action into the matter. He reached the spot alongwith Constable Binay
and found that one lady namely Satyam Yadav was hanging from a
ceiling fan with the help of a chunni on the first floor of the above said
house. One girl Vanshika @ Vansu, aged about one and half years was
also shifted to Satya Bhama Hospital Nangloi, Delhi where she was
declared brought dead due to strangulation vide MLC No.924/2012.
Since the death was within the span of seven years of marriage, the
SDM Punjabi Bagh was informed, who recorded the statement of
family members of deceased. Thereafter, FIR No. 285/2012 under
Section 498-A/304-B/302/406/34 of IPC was registered at Police
Station Nangloi, Delhi.

4. During the investigation, post mortem was conducted and the
cause of death was opined to be due to asphyxia as a result of ante
mortem ligature strangulation. Thereafter, body of deceased was
handed over to the parents of the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended on behalf of the
petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since the last four and a half
years, i.e., since 23.11.2012 and all the family and independent
witnesses have been examined. The application for seeking bail has
been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order
dated 18.01.2017, wherein the petitioner had sought parity with co-
accused Lal Ram Yadav, who has been granted bail by the learned
Bail Appl. No.258/2017 Page 2 of 8
Additional Sessions Judge in the present case. It is further contended
that the evidence recorded so far cannot be evaluated at this stage, as
the essential ingredients to make out a case punishable under Section
498A
of IPC are absent, and as such, no offence punishable under
Section 304B can be made out against the petitioner. It is further
contended that the daughter of the petitioner is of a marriageable age
and there is no one in the family to look after her. Therefore it is
prayed that the petitioner be granted bail in the present case.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
the State opposed the aforesaid contentions made on behalf of the
petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the State that the death of the
victim was within the period of 7 years of marriage and she was
mentally and physically harassed by her in-laws, which compelled her
to take her life by hanging herself from the ceiling fan. Regarding the
cause of death, the death of the victim was opined to be due to
asphyxia as a result of ante mortem ligature strangulation.”

7. Accordingly, charge sheet has been filed and till date, 21
witnesses out of 29 witnesses have been examined. It is further stated
that though the father-in-law of the deceased has been granted
anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order
dated 04.01.2017, it was on the ground that Lal Ram Yadav was a
known social worker of the area and he preferred his daughter in law
(victim herein) as a potential candidate for the constituency, where the
applicant was engaged in social work. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge has also observed in the order dated 04.01.2017 while
Bail Appl. No.258/2017 Page 3 of 8
granting bail to the co-accused that the deceased had won the election
and was elected councillor of the area and had also
participated/attended the function held in the constituency few days
prior to her death. As such, it cannot be construed that she was
subjected to any harassment or cruelty by the applicant (Lal Ram
Yadav). However, the case of Suman Yadav, the petitioner herein,
stands on a different footing. She cannot claim parity with the co-
accused Lal Ram Yadav. Therefore, the present application of the
petitioner is liable to be rejected.

8. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner as well as the submissions of learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also gone through the
material placed on record.

9. For careful scrutiny of the case, the contents of the petition as
well as charge sheet and the deposition of the material witnesses,
before the Trial Court have been gone through and this Court observes
that the petitioner has been charged with the offence punishable under
Section 498-A/304-B/406/34 of IPC.

10. So far as the contents, grounds, circumstances, explanations and
reasoning given by the petitioner in the present petition are concerned,
this Court observes that all the above issues shall be tried by the
concerned Court and be decided based on leading cogent evidence.
For the purpose of deciding the bail application, this Court need not go
into the merits of the case, but consider whether the petitioner has
Bail Appl. No.258/2017 Page 4 of 8
been able to make out any prima facie case for grant of bail or not.

11. The admitted case of both the sides is that the death of the
victim/deceased is caused within the period of 7 years of marriage
and the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The
petitioner was arrested in this case on 23.11.2012 and since then is in
judicial custody. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is
charged with the offence punishable under Section 498-A/304-
B/406/34 of IPC; 21 out of 29 witnesses have been examined; and
that the father-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail.

12. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14
SCC 496, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the basic principles
laid down in catena of judgments on the point of granting bail. The
Court proceeded to enumerate the factors:

9. … among other circumstances, the factors [which are]
to be borne in mind while considering an application for
bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed
the offence;

                (ii)     nature and gravity of the accusation;
                (iii)    severity of the punishment in the event of
                         conviction;

                (iv)     danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
                         released on bail;
                (v)      character, behaviour, means, position and standing
                         of the accused;
Bail Appl. No.258/2017                                                  Page 5 of 8
                 (vi)     likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant
of bail.

13. This Court observes that the learned Additional Sessions Judge
has declined the bail application of the present petitioner on the
ground that the petitioner is facing trial in respect of demand of
dowry, criminal breach of trust and unnatural death of her daughter-in-
law and it is clear from the records that allegations against the
petitioner are both specific and serious in nature; as leveled by both
the brothers of the deceased in their statement before the SDM. Both
the brothers of deceased namely Nishant and Prashant and mother of
deceased Satyawati leveled specific allegations regarding harassment
and dowry demands against the petitioner. The mother of the deceased
has specifically deposed in court that Suman Yadav i.e. petitioner had
told her daughter (deceased) to bring 51 sarees, gold ornaments and
expensive clothes from her parents. She further deposed that she had
given golden pair of ear-rings, silver pajeb and Bichuas, one gold ring
to the petitioner in Chhuchhhak ceremony. More so, mother of
deceased has also leveled specific allegation of demand of
Rs.50,000/- from the deceased for contesting elections. Apart from
mother of the deceased, PW-5 Prashant Singh and PW-18 Nishant,
both brothers of the deceased have leveled specific allegations of
harassment and dowry demand against the petitioner.

Bail Appl. No.258/2017 Page 6 of 8

14. So far as the fact that the father-in-law of the deceased has been
granted bail in this case, this Court observes that he has been granted
bail as he was a known social worker of the area and had preferred his
daughter in law (i.e. deceased) as a potential candidate for the
constituency where the applicant was engaged in social work. The
deceased had won the election and was elected as councilor of the area
and had also been participating/attending the function held in the
constituency, even few days prior to her death. In any case the
petitioner cannot seek parity as the case of the petitioner stands on a
different footing, as she was the mother-in-law of the victim and there
are specific allegations of demand of Rs.50,000/- by her from the
deceased for contesting elections. The fact of dowry harassment and
dowry demand have been corroborated by brothers of the deceased,
i.e., PW-5 Prashant Singh and PW-18 Nishant.

15. In the considered opinion of this Court, before granting or
refusing bail, the court must satisfy itself after considering the material
placed on record and further developments in the investigations or
otherwise and other peculiar circumstances of each case, whether there
are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on bail or not. This
Court is also of the opinion that in criminal jurisprudence, every case
stands on a different footing and no straightjacket formula can be
adopted.

16. In the facts of the present case, this Court observes that though
the petitioner is in judicial custody since the date of her arrest, i.e.,
from 23.11.2012, there are specific allegations for demand of
Bail Appl. No.258/2017 Page 7 of 8
Rs.50,000/- and other dowry demands against her.

17. In light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this
Court finds the allegations against the petitioner as serious in nature
and the fact that 21 out of 29 witnesses have been examined and only
formal/police witnesses are yet to be examined, the trial may not take
much time to conclude. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner – Suman Yadav, at this stage. However, the Trial
Court is expected to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.

18. In view of the aforesaid, the facts emerging from the record
culminate into dismissal of the present bail application. Accordingly,
the present bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed at this
stage.

19. Before parting with the order, this Court would like to place it
on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated
hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of
disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing
contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final
opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the
case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of
the trial.

20. In the light of the aforesaid, the bail application filed by the
petitioner is dismissed.

P.S.TEJI, J
MARCH 03, 2017
pkb
Bail Appl. No.258/2017 Page 8 of 8

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation