Ravi Beniwal v. State (Not of Delhi)

1. Aggrieved bythe order dated 17.08.2015, passed bythe learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi, vide which the bail application filed by the petitioner has been rejected, the petitioner has filed the present bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking bail in case FIR No.362/2013 registered under Section 498-A/304B/34 of IPC, Police Bail Appln. 1959/2015 2015:DHC:10878 Station Malviya Nagar, Delhi.

2. This is a case of unnatural death of a bride, who was married with the petitioner on 06.12.2011 and the case of dowiy death has been registered at the instance of brother of the deceased Deepika, namely, Manoj Kumar Parcha (hereinafter referred to as the complainant). The complainant (PW-1) has alleged that the husband and in-laws of deceased Deepika used to demand cash from the deceased, her brother and parents and a few days back, they had demanded an air conditioner. It is also alleged that Deepika was beaten up by the accused persons and she had told him about the incident which took place about 15 days before, stating that her inlaws had threaten her to kill.

3. The complainant has already been examined as PW-1, who has deposed that at the instance of her mother-in-law, deceased was beaten by her husband - the petitioner herein with a belt and two months prior to death of his sister Deepika, the petitioner came to his house and demanded Rs.[3] lacs for purchasing a car and due to nonfulfilment ofthe said demand ofmoney, the petitioner used to beat his sister. The allegations of harassment and torture of deceased by the BailAppln. 1959/2015 Page[2] of 6 petitioner and other accused persons for demand ofdowry was made just prior to her death.

4. Mr. Mukesh Birla, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the deceased Deepika vomited blood and she was taken to Saket City Hospital New Delhi by the parents of the petitioner on 27.07.2013, where she expired on 28.07.2013, during her treatment. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the complainant in his deposition has made contradictory statement to the statement given by him before the SDM and also made improvement in his statement by stating that the petitioner had demanded a sum ofRs.[3] lacs and his sister was suffering from an ailment.

5. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that Monika - the sister of the deceased, who was married to the brother of the petitioner, has been examined as PW-6 and in her deposition, she had not levelled any allegation ofharassment against any ofthe in-law of deceased on account of dowry demand, rather she levelled general allegations. Sister ofthedeceased Deepika hadjoinedhermatrimonial home on 05.04.2015 and is happily living with her husband Sachin Beniwal. BailAppln. 1959/2015

6. It is further contended onbehalf of the petitioner that the sister of the petitioner (Nisha) is on anticipatory bail, brother (Sachin Beniwal) has been released on bail vide order dated 19.11.2014, father of the petitioner has also been granted bail vide order dated 02.03.2015, mother of the petitioner has also been released on bail by the Trial Court vide order dated 18.03.2015 and another sister of the petitioner has also been released on bail by the Trial Court vide order dated 15.07.2015.

7. Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since the date ofhis arrest and only 9 out of 18 witnesses have been examined and since the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court has retired, no effective hearing is taking place and the trial may take a long time to conclude, therefore, the petitioner ought tohave been granted bail inthe present case.

8. Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the bail application and filed a status report. It is submitted inthe status report that the exhibits i.e. viscera of deceased Deepika Beniwal was sent to FSL Rohini for analysis and for expert opinion and the Senior Bail Appln. 1959/2015 Page 4 of[6] Scientific Officer ofFSL Rohini had examined the viscera and he had opined that the exhibit of the deceased contained aluminium phosphide andphosphide. It is further stated in the status report that the charges against all the six accused persons have been framed under Section 498-A/304-B/302/34 of IPG and out of total 21 ^ prosecution witnesses, 12 witnesses have been examined. There is an active role ofthe petitioner in this case, therefore, while looking at the seriousness of the offence, the bail application of the petitioner be rejected.

9. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State andhave gone through the status report, impugned order and the material ^ placed on record.

10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court observes that there is an active role of the petitioner in this case and 12 more witnesses are to yet be examined. Senior Scientific Officer of FSL Rohini who examined the viscera of the deceased had opined that the exhibit of the deceased contained aluminium phosphide and phosphide. Moreover, considering that the charges Bail Appln. 1959/2015 Page 5of[6] <$> under Section 304-B and 302 of IPC are framed against the petitioner and other co-accused persons, this Court does not find this case to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage, especially when 12 more witnesses are yet to be examined, and the tampering of the evidence also cannot be ruled out. 'C 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is ofthe opinion that the petitioner - Ravi Beniwal does not deserve the concession of bail in this case, at this stage. Accordingly, the present application filed by the petitioner - Ravi Beniwal is dismissed at this stage.

12. It goes without saying that the expression of any opinion made hereinbefore shall not be treated as an expression on the merits ofthe ^ case.

13. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present petition r stands disposed of. Jsit JUDGE DECEMBER 18, 2015 pkb Bail Appln. 1959/2015 Page 6of[6]