Maya Devi v. The State

1. Exemption allowed subjecttojust exceptions. Bail Application No.1156/2016

2. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure(Cr.P.C.)for grant ofbail to the petitioner till the final disposal of the case bearing FIR No.466/2014 registered under Section 498-A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) at Police Station New Friends Colony. The petitioner is injudicial custody since 29.10.2014.

3. The facts as narrated by learned counsel for the petitioner are within the narrow compass. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted thatthe petitioner Ms.Maya Devi was the mother-in-law Bail Application No.1156/2016 Page I of[6] 2016:DHC:8260 J) ofthe deceased Ms.Preeti. It is stated that an FIR was registered by the police on the recommendation ofSDM and that the author ofthe FIR was the father ofthe deceased Ms.Preeti. It transpires from the record thatthe marriage between Ms.Preeti with Mr.Sumit was solemnized on 20'^ November,2013 and a huge amount was spent in the marriage apart from other dowry articles and a car. The complainant had alleged that on 23'^'^ October, 2014 in the night at about 10.00 -10.30 p.m.,Preeti(deceased)had talked with him over the phone and she seemed happy and wished Diwali to everyone. The complainanthad also stated thatit did not appearto him that his daughter would commit suicide on the following day. The complainant had requested that the death of his daughter be investigated. In the FIR lodged by the complainant,it was alleged thatthe complainant had suspicion that his daughter Preeti had not committed suicide and that her in-laws were involved in her death. •It was also alleged in FIR/D.D. No.9A that before the festival of Karvachauth, Preeti made a phone call that on Karvachauth, clothes and other articles for all her in-laws were given as per her asking. It was further alleged thaton October,2014,Preeti and Sumit came with all the articles stating that these items were deficient and also informed that mother-in-law andjeth ofPreeti BailApplication No.1156/2016 ^"8^^ had demanded Rs.20,000/- which the complainant somehow arranged on the same day.

4. Itis submitted by learned counselforthe petitionerthatthere is no direct allegation againstthe petitionerfor demand ofdowry& harassment. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitionerthatthe petitionerhad beenfalsely implicated inthiscase and that the Court of learned ASJ, Saket, vide order dated 14 May,2016,dismissedthe bail application ofthe petitioner.

5. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge sheet in this case has been filed and the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence. It is submitted that even the material witnesses have already been examined who have not supported the case ofthe prosecution against the petitioner. It is further submitted that out of six accused persons, two accused namely Mohit & Swati had already been discharged in the case vide order dated 13"" July, 2015 and two co-accused namely Shri Ram Kishan (father-in-law) and Sudhir Kumar (Jeth), have been granted regular bail by the learned ASJ vide orders dated 23 February,2015& 12^February,2016respectively.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand,opposed grantofbailonthe groundthatthe allegations BailApplication No.II56/20I[6] ^of[6] X against the petitioner are serious in nature and that there is involvementofthe petitioner in the death ofMs.Preeti-the daughter ofthe complainant. It is submitted that as per the status report filed by the State,on 24^^ October,2014,aPGR call was received regarding hanging. The dead body ofPriti was kept on the ground near the bed and ligature marks were found on her neck. There was no external injury on the body ofthe deceased. It is further stated that the post mortem report of deceased Priti was obtained and doctor opined cause ofdeath as"asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging". The experts ofFSL,Rohini opined that hanging could be possible with Chunni found on the spot and the ligature mark mentioned in the post-mortem report could be caused by the Chunni.

7. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also gone through the material placed on record.

8. To decide the present bail application, what the Court is required to see is, as to whether a prima facie case is made outfor grant ofbail to the petitioner or not.

9. It appearsthatthere were no specific allegations againstthe BailApplication No.1156/2016 Page4of[6] petitioner for harassment of dowry and that the only allegation against the petitioner is that she had demanded Rs.20,000/- and slapped Preeti(deceased), who is the daughter ofthe complainant. It is an admitted position that there was no complaint by the deceased or herfamily membersto the police regarding harassment or demand of dowry by the petitioner or any other person soon before the alleged incident. It is also an admitted case of the prosecution that the other co-accused were either discharged or granted regular bail.

10. There are a large number ofcases ofthis Courtin which the question ofparity in the matters ofbail has been considered earlier and the weight ofjudicial authority is in favour ofthe principle of parity being followed.

11. In light of the facts and circumstances ofthe present case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner - Smt.Maya Devi in the present case subjectto her furnishing personal bond in the sum ofRs.25,000/- with two sureties ofthe like amount,to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The petitioner is directed not to tamper with the evidence, not to influence the prosecution witnesses and shall not leave the country without prior permission ofthe Court concerned. BailApplication No.1156/2016 Page5of[6]

12. Before parting withthe order,this Courtwould liketo place it on record by way ofabundant caution that whatever has been stated hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose ofdisposing ofthe prayerfor bail made bythe petitioner. Nothingcontainedinthisordershallbeconstruedasexpressionof a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Courtseized ofthe trial.

13. With aforesaid directions,the presentbailapplication stands disposed of. Dasti. JULY ir,2016 aa (P.^.TEfll) JUDGJ BailApplication No.1156/2016 Page6of[6]