Leela Devi & Anr v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

ORDER %

14.09.2015 Both the bail applicationshave been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The petitionersare the brother-in-lawand the parents-in-lawofthe deceasedrespectively. They have been made accusedin the case institutedunder Sections 304B/498A and 34 of the IPG. 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 of the deceased made a statement under Section 161 of the 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 treatedwell in her matrimonialhome, nothingconcretecame out during the courseof investigation.The investigationreportfurtherrevealsthat the deceasedhad delivereda girl childa few weeks'ago. Perusedthe postmortemreportfurnishedby the APP. In the opinion ofthe Doctorconductingthe autopsy,the deathwas unlikelybecauseoffall from the height of 3-4 stairs ratherthe injuriesof such nature could have beencausedonlyoutofafall from aheightofone flooror above. The post mortemreport refers to multipleskull fracturesand fracturesof left femur and other parts of the human body. The deceased was admitted in the hospital on 19.3.2015 at the instance of the father-in-law of the 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 of the 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 of the Trial Court. Needless to state that in case the petitioners default in appearing before the investigatingAgency for completion of investigationagainst them, it would be open to the prosecutingagencyto file an applicationfor cancellationof the bailgrantedto the petitioner. The bail applicationsare allowedand disposedof. Dasti. ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 14,2015 Bisht

> $-5 &6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + 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. + BAIL APPLN. 1812/2015 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. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR