Anita Sharma v. The State ( NCT of Delhi)

JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

¶1By this petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case registered as FIR No. 1176/2015 under Section 498-A/304-B/306/34 of IPC Police Station Dabri, Delhi.

¶2In this case, the petitioner is the jethani (sister-in-law) of the deceased Anuradha, who was married to Vimal Sharma on

10.02.2015 and on 25.08.2015 Anuradha committed suicide, i.e., within six months, of marriage.

¶3On the statement made before SDM, Najafgarh by Govind Sahai Tiwari - father of the deceased, a case under Section 498-A/304-B/306/34 of IPG was registered against the in-laws of the deceased Anuradha.

¶4As per the contentsof FIR, complainantGovind Sahai Tiwari has stated that marriage of his daughter Anuradha (since deceased) was solemnised with Vimal Sharma on 10.02.2015 and after the marriageshe was residingwith her husbandin a jointfamilyat Vijay Enclave.Aftereight days of marriage,he took Anuradhato his home since she had to appear in 12^*" class examination. Thereafter, Anuradhadid not go back to her matrimonialhome. A notice fi-om a lawyer regarding divorce was received later on. Thereafter complainant lodged a case in Women Cell, Kirti Nagar, and on

22.07.2015matter got settled between them and Vimal (husbandof Anuradha),his brother and his brother-in-law(Jija) took Anuradha back. Complainanthas ftirther stated that on 12.08.2015,Anuradha and her husband Vimal came to his home and on 23.08.2015 he went Bail Appln.2517/2015 Page2of8 to meet Anuradha and talked to her and she said that she had no problem from her in-laws but she was looking disturbed. On

25.08.2015,complainantreceiveda call from Avinash Sharma who called him and his wife within five minutes to Vijay Enclave. Complainantalone reachedthere and he found that huge crowd and police were gatheredthere. In the presence of complainant,family membersand policewent to 2"^* floor ofthe house where door ofthe room was bolted from inside. Some of the police officials broke open the window of the room and opened the door from inside and complainantfound Anuradhahanging with saree on the ceiling fan. Police Officialsbroughther down and her dead body was takento the hospital.

¶5Mr.Sameer Chandra, counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioneris 28 years of age and she is havingclean antecedents, two minorchildren,oneboyof 3 years and one girl of 6 years andshe was living separatelyon anotherfloor of the same house. It is further contendedon behalf of the petitionerthat the petitionerwas not at the matrimonial home since 06.08.2015 as she had gone to her brother's houseto extendhelp as her brotherand his wife has beenblessedwith Page 3of8 a baby, whereas the deceased committed suicide on 25.08.2015.

¶6While adverting to the contents of the FIR, counsel for the petitioner contend that the petitioner is not specificallynamed in the FIR and even in the statement recorded before the SDM, wherein the complainant - father of the deceased has specifically stated that Anuradha has never complained against her in-laws (sasural wale) and also drew attention towards the remark given by the learned Executive Magistrate, Dwarka that ''As per the recorded statement of Sh. Govind Sahay and Kusum Tiwari no foul play noticed." It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the deceased lived for only 3 days in the matrimonial home and she did not return back aftergivingher 12^^ exams.

¶7Counsel for the petitioner also placed on record the printout of the FACE BOOK account of the deceased showing that the deceased wanted to marry another boy and she wanted to divorce Vimal. Attention is also drawn to the printout of the SMS, alongwith phone, sent by the deceased on 11.03.2015 at 10.27 min, in which the deceased sent sms to her husband 'Tm mujhe devorce de do." It is also submitted that on 17.05.2015, in a family meeting the deceased Bail Appln. 2517/2015 herself wrote, in front of her family members that she wanted to give divorce to her husband and also drew attention of the Court to the note.

¶8It is thereafter, that on 28.05.2015 the husband of deceased sent a legal notice to the deceased to come forward to file the petition for divorce by way of mutual consent as per her wishes. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the father of the deceased has lodged false complaint against the in-laws of deceased as the deceased herself admitted in a telephonic conversation with her husband Vimal that the complaint was false. In support of his contention, the relevant excerpt in the form of transcript of the telephonic conversation in Hindi between the deceased and her husband Vimal has also been filed. It is contended that the marriage of the deceased was solemnised with / Vimal by the parents of deceased, against her wishes. It is further contended that there is no allegation against the petitioner of causing any cruelty to the deceased and there is no evidence that the deceased . was ever subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry and there is no evidence that any cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry is shown to have Bail Appln.2517/2015 been meted out to the deceased. It is further submitted that no notice under Section 160 Cr. P.C. has been served upon the petitioner for joiningthe investigationand the petitioneris alwaysreadyto join the investigationas and when required. It is further contendedthat no recoveryis to be affectedfrom the petitionerandtherefore,there is no requirement for custodial interrogation.

¶9In supportof his contentions,counsel for the petitionerrelied upon the following judgments

i) M.P. Lohia vs. State of WestBengal & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 790;

ii) VedPrakash Yadav vs. State, 2005 (3) JCC1627; ill) Smt. Inderjit Kaur vs. The State, 2005 (2) JCC 720;

iv) Narayanamurthy vs. State of Karnataka and another,

(2010) 4 see (Cri) 322;

v) Saurav Kumar Garg vs. State,II (2014)DLT (Crl) 630;

vi) Sarla Devi vs. State of NCT of Delhi, III (2015) DLT

(Crl) 449;

vii) Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694;

viii) Courton its own motionvs. CBI, 2004 (1) JCC308.

¶10The petitioneralso moved an applicationbefore the learned Additional Sessions Judge, seeking anticipatorybail and the Trial Page6of8 Court vide order dated 06.11.2015 has rejected the same keeping in view the seriousness of offence and statements of witnesses/relatives of the deceased. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

¶11I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the status report, impugned order and the material placed on record.

¶12Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and after going through the record of this case as well as the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, this court observes that all the accused persons are in custody and warrants against the petitioner has been issued. She is still absconding and that the charge under Section 304-B of IPC is framed against the petitioner and other co-accused persons and thus, this Court does not find this case to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶13In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner - Anita Sharma does not deserve the concession of bail in this case, at this stage. Accordingly, the present application filed by the petitioner - Anita y Page7 of 8 ^ Sharma is dismissed at this stage.

¶14It goes without saying that the expression of any opinion made hereinbefore shall not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶15In view of the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of. DECEMBER 18,2015 pkb Bail Appln. 2517/2015 (PS.TEJI)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judsment delivered on : December 18, 2015 + BAIL APPLN. 2517/2015 ANITA SHARMA Petitioner Through: Mr.SameerChandra,Mr.Kuldeep Singh, Mr.S.C. Mohan Mehata & Mr.Zubair Raza, Advocates. versus TEE STATE( NCT OFDELHI) Respondent Through: Ms. ManjeetArya,AdditionalPublic Prosecutor for the State with Inspector Harendra Singh, SHO, Police Station Dabri, Delhi. Mr.Balraj, Advocate for complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI