Mr.O.P.Bhandani, Adv. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? V.K. SHALI, J.(Oral)

1. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR no.19/2008, u/S 306 IPC registered by P.S. Nabikarim, District Central, Delhi.

2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was never married to the deceased who is alleged to have committed suicide. In order to 2011:DHC:4345 support his submission, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the complaint made by the father of the deceased as well as the supplementary statement which was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to contend that even the father of the deceased has nowhere stated that his daughter was ever married to him.

3. The petitioner has also placed on record the certificate purported to have been issued by Gurudwara Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad to the effect that no marriage had taken place between Harpreet Singh and Jasvinder Kaur between 2.8.2007 to 31.8.2007.

4. On the basis of these averments, it was contended that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case.

5. As against this, the learned APP has contended that the deceased had left a suicide note wherein she has fully implicated the present petitioner. The handwriting on the suicide note has been got compared with the admitted handwriting of the deceased from the Forensic Lab. The Forensic Lab after analyzing the question document with the admitted document has concluded that both the handwritings match and therefore, it is contended that there is no doubt about the fact that the suicide note happens to be in the handwriting of the deceased.

6. It is further contended that the deceased has clearly implicated the present petitioner in her own suicide note and has stated that the petitioner was solely responsible for her death. It was also contended that she had contracted marriage with the present petitioner without the knowledge of her parents.

7. I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the police file as well as the Court record.

8. Since the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature and the fact that report of the CFL states that the handwriting matches with the handwriting of the deceased, it will not be proper in case the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail at this stage when the investigation are still underway. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.

9. The petition is dismissed. V.K. SHALI, J. AUGUST 25, 2011 RN