SAURAV KUMAR GARG Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of petitioner-Saurav Kumar Garg i.e., brother in law (Devar) of the deceased Pooja Garg. Petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in respect of FIR no.95/2014 u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC P.S.Adarsh Nagar. In the aforesaid FIR, there are three more accused persons namely Sandeep Garg, Mr.Surinder Garg and Smt.Padma Garg being husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively.

(2.) The marriage of the deceased with Sandeep Garg was solemnised on 22nd February, 2009. There are two children born from the wedlock of the parties. As per the case of the prosecution, deceased had died unnatural death i.e., by burns on 8th February, 2014. On 8th February, 2014, DD no.8A was received at Police Station Adarsh Nagar. When SI Sandeep Kumar reached the spot i.e., C-7/3, New Cottage Road, Adarsh Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi, he came to know that deceased i.e., Pooja Garg w/o Sandeep Garg had been taken to the hospital. On reaching there he came to know that deceased had got 99% superficial to deep burns and she was declared brought dead. The FIR was registered by the police on the basis of statements of parents and brother of the deceased to the S.D.M.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are no allegations against the present petitioner that he had harassed the deceased for or in connection with any demand of dowry. It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the matrimonial home of the deceased was consisting of three floors. The deceased was living at the second floor while the present petitioner along with his wife was living at the third floor of the said house. There are no allegations in the statements of parents and brother of the deceased on the basis of which FIR has been registered that the present petitioner had harassed her for or in connection with demand of dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that ingredients of section 304B IPC have not been made out against the petitioner.