Full Text
Translation output
> $-5 &6 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1383/2015
ANIL NAWARIYA Petitioner
Through: MrJaved Hashmi with Mr.Neeraj Kumar, Advocates.
BAIL APPLN. 1383/2015
ANIL NAWARIYA Petitioner
Through: MrJaved Hashmi with Mr.Neeraj Kumar, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE (GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI) Respondent
Through: Mr.M.P.Singh, APP Insp.Mahesh Soni, P.S.Neb Sarai.
Through: Mr.M.P.Singh, APP Insp.Mahesh Soni, P.S.Neb Sarai.
BAIL APPLN. 1812/2015
LEELA DEVI & ANR Petitioner
Through: Mr.Javed Hashmi with Mr.Neeraj Kumar, Advocates.
LEELA DEVI & ANR Petitioner
Through: Mr.Javed Hashmi with Mr.Neeraj Kumar, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) Respondent
Through: Mr.Raghuvinder Verma, APP.
Insp.Mahesh Soni, P.S.Neb Sarai.
Through: Mr.Raghuvinder Verma, APP.
Insp.Mahesh Soni, P.S.Neb Sarai.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
14.09.2015 Both the bail applications have been heard together and are being disposed ofby a common order.
The petitioners are the brother-in-law and the parents-in-law ofthe deceased respectively.
They have been made accused in the case instituted under Sections
304B/498A and 34 ofthe IPG.
2015:DHC:10687 The First Information Report has been lodged by the father of the deceased wherein he has expressed his suspicion that perhaps the death of the deceased was not under normal circumstances. Though the father of the deceased has alleged that the relationship of the in-laws with the deceased was strained but no specific instance has been cited by the informant about any specific overt act against the petitioners.
During the course of investigation, the mother ofthe deceased made a statement under Section 161 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the husband of the deceased had assaulted her for not bringing sufficient money as dowry. Be it noted that in the First Information Report, the father of the deceased has made a categorical statement that no demand was made at the time of marriage. The mother of the deceased has stated that whenever Anil Nawariya, brother-in-law used to come home, he behaved as if he were the owner of the house and always insinuated by saying that he would marry somebody who would be in government service and comes from a rich family.
Apart fi-om such vague and general allegation that the deceased was not treated well in her matrimonial home, nothing concrete came out during the course of investigation. The investigation report further reveals that the deceased had delivered a girl child a few weeks' ago.
Perused the post mortem report furnished by the APP. In the opinion ofthe Doctor conducting the autopsy, the death was unlikely because offall from the height of 3-4 stairs rather the injuries of such nature could have been caused only out ofafall from aheight ofone floor or above. The post mortem report refers to multiple skull fractures and fractures of left femur and other parts of the human body. The deceased was admitted in the hospital on 19.3.2015 at the instance ofthe father-in-law ofthe deceased and she died on 26.3.2015. The discharge summary further reveals that on
26.3.2015 the deceased suffered cardio-respiratory arrest and she could not respond favourable to resuscitation measures.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the husband of the deceased is in custody.
The petitioners have joined the investigation and assure that they shall present themselves before the Investigation Agency/Investigation
Officer/SHO ofthe concernedpolice station as and when required by them.
Charge sheet has already been submitted against the husband of the deceased whereas the investigation against the petitioners is still pending.
Considering the aforementioned facts, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Let the petitioners, in the event of their arrest, be released on their furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction ofthe Trial Court.
Needless to state that in case the petitioners default in appearing before the investigating Agency for completion of investigation against them, it would be open to the prosecuting agency to file an application for cancellation of the bailgranted to the petitioner.
The bail applications are allowed and disposed of.
Dasti.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 14,2015 Bisht
14.09.2015 Both the bail applications have been heard together and are being disposed ofby a common order.
The petitioners are the brother-in-law and the parents-in-law ofthe deceased respectively.
They have been made accused in the case instituted under Sections
304B/498A and 34 ofthe IPG.
2015:DHC:10687 The First Information Report has been lodged by the father of the deceased wherein he has expressed his suspicion that perhaps the death of the deceased was not under normal circumstances. Though the father of the deceased has alleged that the relationship of the in-laws with the deceased was strained but no specific instance has been cited by the informant about any specific overt act against the petitioners.
During the course of investigation, the mother ofthe deceased made a statement under Section 161 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the husband of the deceased had assaulted her for not bringing sufficient money as dowry. Be it noted that in the First Information Report, the father of the deceased has made a categorical statement that no demand was made at the time of marriage. The mother of the deceased has stated that whenever Anil Nawariya, brother-in-law used to come home, he behaved as if he were the owner of the house and always insinuated by saying that he would marry somebody who would be in government service and comes from a rich family.
Apart fi-om such vague and general allegation that the deceased was not treated well in her matrimonial home, nothing concrete came out during the course of investigation. The investigation report further reveals that the deceased had delivered a girl child a few weeks' ago.
Perused the post mortem report furnished by the APP. In the opinion ofthe Doctor conducting the autopsy, the death was unlikely because offall from the height of 3-4 stairs rather the injuries of such nature could have been caused only out ofafall from aheight ofone floor or above. The post mortem report refers to multiple skull fractures and fractures of left femur and other parts of the human body. The deceased was admitted in the hospital on 19.3.2015 at the instance ofthe father-in-law ofthe deceased and she died on 26.3.2015. The discharge summary further reveals that on
26.3.2015 the deceased suffered cardio-respiratory arrest and she could not respond favourable to resuscitation measures.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the husband of the deceased is in custody.
The petitioners have joined the investigation and assure that they shall present themselves before the Investigation Agency/Investigation
Officer/SHO ofthe concernedpolice station as and when required by them.
Charge sheet has already been submitted against the husband of the deceased whereas the investigation against the petitioners is still pending.
Considering the aforementioned facts, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Let the petitioners, in the event of their arrest, be released on their furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction ofthe Trial Court.
Needless to state that in case the petitioners default in appearing before the investigating Agency for completion of investigation against them, it would be open to the prosecuting agency to file an application for cancellation of the bailgranted to the petitioner.
The bail applications are allowed and disposed of.
Dasti.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 14,2015 Bisht
JUDGMENT