VED PRAKASH YADAV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the Bail Application No.2055/2005 for regular bail by the father-in-law of the deceased Poonam and Bail Application No.2272/2005 for anticipatory bail by the mother-in-law arising out of FIR No.479/2005 registered at PS Prashant Vihar under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 IPC.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of these two applications, briefly stated, are that the petitioner, Ved Prakash, is the father-in-law of deceased Poonam, who was married to Sunil Kumar on 27.4.2003 at Delhi. Petitioner, Omwati, is her mother-in-law. According to the prosecution, sufficient dowry was given in her marriage and a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- in cash was also given for a Santro Car. It is alleged that soon after marriage, the in-laws of Poonam including the petitioners started harassing and torturing her for more dowry. It was specifically stated in the FIR that Poonam's husband Sunil, his father, mother, elder brother Satish and his wife Sharmila were torturing Poonam on account of dowry demands. Her brother-in-law Sandeep and sister-in-law, however, were not party to these demands and as such, there was no grievance against them. It was alleged that the husband of Poonam used to beat her also and as such, a report was lodged at Police Station Saraswati Vihar. One flat was purchased in the name of the deceased at Rohini for which also, the family of Poonam was made to give Rs.4 lacs to Ved Prakash, petitioner. On 22.5.2005, Poonam, committed suicide in her matrimonial home and as such, an FIR under Section 498- A/304-B IPC was registered. Sunil Kumar Yadav, the husband of the deceased, who was an Inspector in Delhi Police and the present petitioner were arrested. The Bail Application No.2055/2005 is for regular bail on behalf of the father -in-law Ved Prakash Yadav and Bail Application No.2272/2005 is for anticipatory bail on behalf of mother-in-law Omwati.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that deceased Poonam and her husband Sunil were living separately in their flat at Sector-15, Rohini at the time of the incident and even prior to that, they were living in a rented house at Sector-16, Rohini and as such, both the petitioners had not played any role in the events leading to the suicide of the deceased. It is submitted that the petitioner Ved Prakash Yadav had even disinherited his son Sunil from his property much before the incident and had no dealings with him. He used to persuade his son to behave properly with the deceased and was doing everything possible to ensure that the couple was peacefully settled. He refers to the statements made by the deceased and her brother before the Special Executive Magistrate on 10.4.2004 in 107/151 Cr.PC proceedings in which they made allegations of harassment and dowry demands only against Sunil Yadav. It was also stated by the brother of the deceased that the petitioner, Ved Prakash, had tried to impress upon Sunil Yadav to behave properly but he did not agree. It is argued that if right from the day of marriage these petitioners also had been harassing the deceased and making dowry demands, the statements before the SEM would have contained allegations against them also and there was no reason for the deceased and her brother to make allegations against the husband Sunil Yadav only and make no allegations against the present petitioners. It is submitted that the allegations In F.I.R. against the petitioners are false and merely a reaction to the unfortunate suicide of deceased Poonam Yadav. It is submitted that under the facts and circumstances of the case, there are good grounds for releasing the petitioner Ved Prakash Yadav on regular bail and granting anticipatory bail to petitioner, Omwati.