Bail Application No.360/2008 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Bail Application No.360/2008 % Date of Decision: 14.07.2008 Rakesh Sharma ….. Petitioner Through: Mr.K.B. Andely, Sr. Advocate with M.L. Yadav, Advocate. Versus State of Delhi …. Respondent Through: Mr.Amit Sharma, APP for the State. CORAM :- * HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest? ANIL KUMAR, J. * This is a petition for grant of bail by the husband of the deceased, Savita, who allegedly died of hanging on 1st October, 2006. FIR No.917 of 2006 was registered at Police Station Dabri on the complaint of Sanjay Sharma, brother of the deceased, Savita. He has contended that her sister was married to Rakesh Sharma, the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner, his father, mother and sister used to harass the deceased for dowry though the family of deceased Savita had given considerable dowry as per their capacity. Bail Application No.360/2008 Page 2 of 4 Demand of Rs.1.00 lakh for the construction of house was made, out of which Rs.50,000/- was given. The plea of the petitioner is that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated and there is no legal evidence against him. The damand of Rs.1.00 lakh for construction of house does not construe the demand for dowry and there is no clear evidence to justify that the deceased had been killed by the petitioner or any of his family member. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very emphatically contended that the father and mother of the petitioner, who are co- accused, have already been released on bail by order dated 7th February, 2007 and 10th July, 2007. It is asserted that since the allegation against the petitioner are also same, he is also entitled to be released on bail. Release of petitioner on bail is also sought on the ground that the deceased has left infant children aged six years, four years and two years who require proper care and attention. It is also contended that the challan has already been filed and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence and no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail on the ground that specific roll has been attributed to the petitioner as he had allegedly beaten the deceased at 4o clock on the date of incident which was intimated by the deceased to her brother. She had also told him Bail Application No.360/2008 Page 3 of 4 that the petitioner would kill her and he should take her away from there. Thereafter at 11o clock on the same date a phone call was made by the petitioner to the brother of the deceased that her sister has expired. The first information report reveals the allegation of the brother of the deceased that her sister has been killed by the petitioner and that he is giving his statement in full senses. Perusal of Charge Sheet also reveal similar allegations. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that similar charges have been framed against the other co-accused as against the petitioner and since other co-accused were released on Bail prior to framing of charges, the petitioner should also be enlarged on bail. On perusal of the trial Court record and the charge sheet, it is apparent that the allegation made against the petitioner is that he killed deceased Savita whereas no such specific allegation has been made against other co-accused. Merely because the father and mother of the petitioner have been released on bail despite the allegation of harassment for dowry, the petitioner cannot be released on bail on this ground alone. I have also perused the postmortem report indicating that the eyes of deceased were open, however, her mouth was closed and she had blue mark near left eye and on both hands up to wrist and on both Bail Application No.360/2008 Page 4 of 4 feet up to ankle. The FIR reveals that the deceased had allegedly called her brother in the morning at 4o clock and had allegedly stated that she was beaten by the petitioner and she should be taken away from there otherwise she would be killed. I have also perused the photographs of the deceased body after post mortem. The children of the deceased are already with the grand parents who have already been released on the bail. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, in my opinion, it is not a fit case to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. In the circumstances, the bail application of the petitioner is dismissed. July 14, 2008 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘Dev’