RAJINDER KUMAR Petitioner Through Mr. Kawal Chaudhary, Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advs. v. STATE

1. By these petitions the Petitioners seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 182/2011 under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC registered at P.S. Shalimar Bagh. BAIL APPLNS. 1200/2011 & 1201/2011 page 1 of[4] 2011:DHC:6722

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioners are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. They have been living separately at their native place. The other family members i.e. the brotherin-laws and their wives have already been granted anticipatory bail. The allegations against the Petitioner are similar to the allegations against the coaccused who have been granted bail. The son of the Petitioners and the deceased were living a happy married life and were blessed with a 9 month old child when the deceased died. The incident took place on the 19^^^ May,

2011. All the family members have attended a family wedding on the 17* and 18* May, 2011 where the deceased was dancing with everybody else. She was absolutely happy and had no grievance against the Petitioners. However, after the wedding the Petitioners went to their native place and the husband and wife came back to Delhi. Thus, at the time when the deceased died the Petitioners were not present in Delhi. No complaint about the incidents of demand of dowry alleged had been filed in the past. The Petitioners have three sons who live in three separate floors and enjoy a comfortable life. Thus anticipatory bail be granted to them

3. Learned APP on the other hand that the allegations against the Petitioner are serious in nature. There was a demand of Rs. 1,66,000/- and a BAIL APPLNS. 1200/2011 & 1201/2011 page 2 of[4] Santro car even one day prior to the incident when the parties met at the wedding at Firozabad. The deceased stated to her parents that in case the demand of Santro car and Rs. 1,66,000/- was not fulfilled she would be harassed badly. There was a constant harassment caused to the deceased for demand of dowry and hence prayer for grant of anticipatory bail should not be accepted.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that after the death of Ms. Ritu on the 20^^ May, 2011 a statement was given by her father the complainant alleging that in the matrimonial home of his daughter the parents-in-law i.e. the Petitioners herein Shri Sunil Nayak elder brother-in-law, Smt. Renu Nayak elder sisterin-law, Shri Umesh & Smt. Preeti the brother-in-law & sister-in-law, and Shri Sagar Nayak younger brother-in-law reside together. From the date of marriage the in-laws of his daughter were making demands of dowry and were harassing her for insufficient dowry. Whenever she would talk to them she would remain under fear. In the flirther complaint given on 20^*^ May, 2011 itself it was alleged that in-laws of his daughter demanded Rs. 1,66,000/- and a Santro car. The verification of the addresses were also carried out and it was found out that the Petitioners were living with the BAIL APPLNS. 1200/2011 & 1201/2011 \ deceased and her husband. The Petitioner Rajinder Kumar had been allotted

5 Bigha agricultural land in the year 1995 but he did not till the land and the same was initially given on contract. Thereafter the land was converted as Jungle Dhakka and the land is no more in the name of the Petitioner Rajinder Kumar. The Petitioners have lived in Delhi and it cannot be said that since they were living separately away from the couple, there was no interference in their matrimonial life. Pursuant to the investigation a chargesheet has been filed.

5. In view of the fact that there are serious allegations against the Petitioner for demand of dowry soon before the death of the marriage of the deceased which lasted for nearly two years only, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Applications are dismissed.

SEPTEMBER 08,2011 ^MUKTA GUPTA,J 'ga' BAIL APPLNS. 1200/2011 & 1201/2011 page 4 of[4]