SANGITA DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition filed under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No. 0401/2017, under Section 498A/304B/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC'), registered by P.S. Narela, New-Delhi.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on receiving an information vide DD No. 85/B that one Kanchan aged 26 years was brought to the SHRC Hospital on MLC No. 3732/17, who was declared 'brought dead' by the doctors. The deceased body was inspected by SDM who seized the 'Chunni and Parde Ki Rod' from the spot and further sent the body to Mortuary BJRM Hospital for post mortem. On request made by the parents of the deceased, a board of doctors was constituted. Thereafter, the case was registered on 15.05.2017 against the husband, Father-in-Law, Mother-in-Law and Sister-in-Law of the deceased. On 15.05.2017, complaint was lodged by the complainant/ Pradeep Kumar/father of the deceased who stated that his daughter who was 26 years of age got married to Santosh Kumar/husband of deceased on 13.07.2016; that the mother in law and the father in law of his daughter were demanding dowry from her daughter on account of which huge amount was already paid to them; that when the dowry demands were not fulfilled, they killed his daughter on 12/05/2017.

(3.) Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR filed against the petitioner for demand of dowry is false and fabricated; that the petitioner got married on 12.07.2003 and since then she has been staying at her matrimonial house in Faridabad; that on 12.05.2017, she was not present at her parental house at the time of incident; that the deceased was suffering from depression due to unemployment of her husband and did not want to stay at her matrimonial house in Delhi; that the husband of the deceased is in judicial custody after the incident; that on 06.06.2017, an interim bail was granted to the petitioner and continued till 01.08.2017; that on 11.08.2017, another bail application was rejected by this court in view of gravity and nature of offence.