Select a page

Reeta and Ors. vs. State

Judgements favoring men


Bench: JUSTICE Mukta Gupta

Reeta and Ors. vs. State On 19 May2014

Law Point:
The petitioners were not on Delhi at relevant time. The petitioner and her husband came to residing in the matrimonial home of deceased for some days and thereafter harassment started to deceased. Even as per the allegations harassment was on petty things and not for demand of dowry. Bail granted to petitioner.





1. The Petitioners who are wife and husband seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 100/2013 under Section 304B/498A/34 IPC registered at PS Dabri. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioners were not even in Delhi at the relevant time as the Petitioners left Delhi on 8th February, 2014 for their native village in Bihar as the Petitioner Reeta gave birth to a child on 7th March, 2014. Thus, there could have been no harassment by the Petitioners to the deceased soon before the death for demand of dowry.

2. Learned APP for the State has taken me through the contents of FIR and the statement of the mother of the deceased who has levelled allegations against the Petitioners.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The allegations in the abovementioned FIR registered on the statement of Shri Gautam Mehto, the father of the deceased are that he had solemnized the marriage of his daughter with Sudhir Mehto on 26th May, 2013. He gave jewellery, ornaments, articles and cash beyond capacity. For one month after the marriage everything was all right but since the Petitioner and her husband Shiv Nath came for residing in the matrimonial home of the deceased for some days, the harassment started to the deceased. She was beaten by her husband, father-in-law and the Petitioners also abused her. Due to this Manju lived with them till November when the complainant left the deceased at her matrimonial home after the matter was settled between the parties.

4. Smt. Kusum Devi, the mother of the deceased has stated that the Petitioners stayed with the deceased for two months and did not desist from their acts and would fight with her daughter on petty things including washing of the clothes. Thus, even as per the allegation, the harassment was on account of petty things and not for demand of dowry. Further a verification report has been filed as per which both the Petitioners had left Delhi on 8th February, 2014 as Petitioner Reeta was in the advance stage of pregnancy. Reeta gave birth to a child on 7th March, 2014. Thus, I deem it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners. It is therefore directed that in the event of arrest the Petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/SHO concerned, further subject to the condition that they will join the investigation as and when directed by the investigating officer.

Petitions are disposed of Order dasti.


Leave a reply

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


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.