MAHENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE ( GOVT OF NCT DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.A. No.15135/2015 (Exemption) in BAIL APPLN. 2195/2015 Crl.M.A. No.15787/2015 (Exemption) in BAIL APPLN. 2343/2015 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

(2.) Mr. Sunil Ahuja, counsel for the petitioner contended that primarily the case of the prosecution is that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of statement made before the SDM (Punjabi Bagh) by Subhash Kumar brother of the deceased Sheela. He stated that his sister Sheela was married to one Shekhar Chauhan on 08.12.2012. He further stated that at the time of marriage, demand of Rs.5 lac and one I-10 car in dowry is levelled by Subhash Kumar on Shekhar, his brothers Manoj and Mahender and their father Durga Prasad and mother-in-law of Sheela. He alleged that after marriage also Sheela was harassed and beaten up by Shekhar, Manoj and Sheela's mother-in-law for dowry. Though the matter was compromised between the parties with the intervention of five persons of biradari on 18.03.2014 but after few days the accused persons again started harassing her for dowry and treating Sheela cruelly with cruelty both mentally and physically. Allegation regarding non giving of proper food to Sheela was also levelled. It is also alleged that one day prior to the date of suicide committed by Sheela, she had told him that on 19.4.2015, her mother in law, jeth Manoj and Mahender and her husband Shekhar had tied her hands to outrage her modesty and ultimately on 25.4.2015 at about 10 am, his sister Sheela committed suicide. Thereafter, the case was registered on 25.4.2015, against Shekhar, the petitioners, mother in law and father-in-law of Sheela.

(3.) The petitioners in this case are 'jeth' Elder brothers of the husband of the deceased. Counsel for the petitioners contended that all the three brothers including the petitioners herein maintained separate residence, and have their own wives and minor children and the brother of the deceased has falsely implicated the entire family of the petitioners in this case. It is further contended that the allegations regarding beating the deceased is negated by the medical evidence, as no injury was found on the person of the deceased after her death. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the deceased was suffering from acute tuberculosis and have also annexed the medical certificates of the deceased regarding her treatment. It is also contended that the deceased was suffering from tuberculoses prior to her marriage and that fact was not disclosed to the family of the petitioners. As the deceased remained under stress after detection of the disease, she had shown inclination to stay in the parental home. Counsel for the petitioners also averred that they have video and audio recordings of the deceased showing that the deceased had no grievance against any of the family members of the petitioners and she insisted to go back to her parental home. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the deceased had committed suicide because of her ailment and not on account of the fault of husband of the deceased or any of his family members. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioners are having clean antecedents and also referred the order dated 06.10.2015 passed by this Court whereby the father of the petitioner Durga Prasad was ordered to be released on bail in anticipation of his arrest. It is further contended that the custodial investigation of the petitioners is not required and no recovery is to be made from them. It is also contended that the petitioners are permanent resident of Delhi and there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the evidence of the prosecution if they are admitted to anticipatory bail. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, undertook that the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when required by the police.