SANGITA Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. The contention of Mr. Hariharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sangita and Lavesh are the real sister and brother of the husband of the deceased. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if one reads the complaint lodged by Smt. Veena, W/o Hira Lal, R/o 3634, Raigerpura, Delhi, mother of the deceased, which has been converted into an FIR No. 259/2011, under Section 498A /304B IPC registered by P.S. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, there is no allegation in the said complaint that either of the petitioners had subjected the deceased to cruelty with an intention to demand dowry. It has been stated that the name of Lavesh was not at all mentioned in the complaint. So far as the sister -in -law/Sangita is concerned, the only allegation against her is that she used to taunt the deceased and trouble her. There was no specific allegation against her that there was a demand of dowry. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the sister and the brother of the husband of the deceased were living separately. It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been laid down by this Court that in order to make out a prima facie offence under Section 304B, IPC, there must be a linkage between the demand of dowry and the resultant death of the deceased. In case, the link is missing the presumption cannot be drawn and the petitioner is entitled to grant of anticipatory bail.

(2.) I have gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned APP has contended that it has come in the supplementary statement that Lavesh was declared successful in the draw of lots in respect of a flat by the DDA and he had got an allotment letter of a flat at Vasant Kunj, Delhi, for which he had to make a payment of Rs. 5,00,000/ -. He made the demand of Rs. 5,00,000/ - from the deceased. It is, therefore, stated that since the case is at the threshold itself, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.