RAMESH BHANDARI Vs. CHARAN DASS PUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) for cancellationof the bail granted to the three respondents by the learned ASJ, Delhi videorder dated 2-7-92

(2.) I have heard the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for theparties and have also perused the statements of various witnesses examinedby the police as also the order passed by the learned ASJ. The deceasedSmt. Mamta Puri was married to third respondent Kamal Kumar Puri on14-4-1992. She died in West City Nursing Home at about 7.30 p.m. on21-4-1992 i. e. just after a week of her marriage, as a result of a fall fromthe top storey of the matrimonial home. Inquest proceedings were initiatedby the SDM, Patel Nagar and the case was registered on 27-4-1992 i.e.after about six days of her death. I have been taken through the statementsof the various witnesses. Fhe statement of the brother Harish Bhandari,mother, Smt. Prem Bhandari and father Sh. Ramesh Bhandari were recordedby SDM on 22-4-1992. In those statements, they did not attribute 'anyharassment on account of insufficiency of dowry or any further demand.For the first time it was on 23-4-1992, her Bhabhi Sweta Bhandari saidthat when the deceased had come on Phera caremoney on 15-4-92 shementioned that they had not, done well in marrying her in a family whichwas fond of money only. She pacified her and sent her back. Herstatement was recorded on 28-4-1992 by the 10 wherein she gave furtherelaboration to her earlier statement by saying that the respondents hadtaunted her for not bringing sufficient dowry and rather forced her to bringmore money from her parents. Another relation Krishna Ghai wasexamined on 28-4-1992 by the IO wherein she said that on 17-4-1992 thedeceased had told her about taunts being given to her for not bringingdowry. In his complaint to SHO on 25-4-1992, Ramesh Bhandari, saidthat the deceased had told his daughter-in-law Sweta Bhandari on 15-4-92that the respondents had demanded Rs. 1 lac winch should be brought byher from her father.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the statementrecorded during inquest in which there are apparently no allegationsregarding harassment or demand of dowry should not be accepted at thisstage in preference to later statements wherein such allegations are made bythe relations of the deceased. I have carefully applied my mind to thecontentions. It is a case in which apparently earlier statements, althoughnot strictly under Section 161 of the Code do not inculpate the respondentwhereas the later statements made after 6-7 days to inculpate them. Evenif the statements made at the time of inquest are strictly not in investigation,it is not possible also to ignore them since they are quite detailed and in anycase admittedly are in the nature of previous statements of the closestrelations of the deceased. The deceased died after a fall from the top floorof the house. I am of the view that by taking the totality of thecircumstances into consideration/ it was not such a case wherein thediscretion vesting in the learned ASJ for grant of bail. could not have beenexercised. I, therefore, find no infirmity in order of the learned ASJ andI am not persuaded to cancel the bail granted to the respondents.?