SUNIL Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of cr. P. C on behalf of the petitioner Sunil.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that there are no allegations of harassment and dowry demands against the petitioner. It is submitted that as per FIR petitioner has informed about the poor health of the deceased to her brother i. e complainant on 12th July, 2008. It is submitted that petitioner was mediator of marriage between the accused-Pawan Kumar and deceased-Urmila. Except that, there are no allegations against petitioner that he at any point of time demanded dowry from the deceased or caused harassment as no case under section 498a/304b IPC is made against him. It is prayed that IO/sho be directed to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest.

(3.) LEARNED APP has opposed the bail application strenuously. It is contended that as per statements of PWs recorded during investigation, petitioner"s two cousin sisters are married in the family of husband of the deceased. It is submitted that husband of deceased and petitioner were also working together as property dealer and petitioner was residing in their house at the time of incident. It is submitted that there are allegations of harassment and dowry demands against the petitioner and petitioner is involved in a heinous crime and present is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.