Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: JUSTICE Suresh Kait
Ramesh Singh vs State ( NCT Of Delhi) On 12 October 2015
Law Point:
No allegation of demand of dowry related to SDM concerned – Five witnesses have already been examined, who are related to the deceased – Petitioner is entitled to bail.
JUDGEMENT
1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr P C, petitioner seeks direction for releasing him on bail in case FIR No.337/2014 registered at Police Station Swaroop Nagar, Delhi for the offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 of the IPC.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is father-in- law of deceased Rachna and allegations against him are vague and general in nature. The petitioner never demanded dowry at any point of time from the other side, however, treated the deceased as his own daughter. Unfortunately, on 20.07.2014, deceased Rachna committed suicide by consuming the sulphas tablets, which has been confirmed by FSL report dated 06.01.2015.
3. Learned counsel further submits that after the registration of FIR, there are allegations made against petitioner by PW1/ complainant for demand of dowry, however there are no allegations made in the statement of PW1 recorded by the concerned SDM. It is also submitted that petitioner is in custody since 20.07.2014 and as on date, five witnesses have been examined including the family members of deceased, out of 29 prosecution witnesses. Therefore, there is no apprehension of tempering with the evidence.
4. Learned APP for State submits that present case is a serious one and there are specific allegations against the petitioner. He along with co- accused administered some poisonous substance to the deceased, due to which she died on 20.07.2014 just within three months of her marriage. Therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of the offence, petitioner may not be released on bail.
5. It is not in dispute that deceased committed suicide on 20.07.2014 by consuming sulphas tablets which has been confirmed by FSL report dated 06.01.2015. The petitioner is in custody since the date of registration of FIR i.e. 20.07.2014. PW1 has made allegations of demand of dowry against the petitioner, however said allegations were not narrated in his statement recorded by the SDM concerned. Five witnesses have already been examined, who are related to the deceased. Remaining witnesses will take substantial time for conclusion of trial.
6. Keeping in view the allegations against petitioner, who is father in law and period of his custody i.e more than one year, without commenting upon the merits of the case, I am of the view that petitioner is entitled for bail in this case.
7. Accordingly, petitioner shall be released from custody on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. It is also directed that in case of any change of address of petitioner or surety, the same shall be communicated to the jail authorities, learned Trial Court as well as IO/ SHO concerned.
8. Before parting with this order it is made clear that the observation made by this Court herein shall have no bearing on the merits of the case of either side pending trial before learned Trial Court.
9. In above terms, instant petition is allowed and disposed of.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment