* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Bail Application No. 226/2010 % Date of Decision: 19th April, 2010 # PUTTAN PATEL .....PETITIONER ! Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate. VERSUS $ THE STATE (NCT GOVT. OF DELHI) .....RESPONDENT ^ Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State along with IO of the case namely Inspector Vikram Singh . CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner is the father in law of the deceased Munni Devi alleged to have been murdered by her in laws in the incident that took place within two months of her marriage on 03.06.2009. 2 On the last date i.e. 16.04.2010 when the bail application of the petitioner was taken up for hearing, the learned APP had got the matter adjourned for today for filing of dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the SDM in the hospital on 05.06.2009 before her death. A copy of dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the SDM on 05.06.2009 has been placed on record and the same has been perused by me. 3 The deceased Munni Devi died because of burn injuries suffered by her in the incident that took place in the factory of her husband on Bail Application No. 226/2010 Page 1 of 3 03.06.2009. In her statement which she gave to the SDM on 05.06.2009, she implicated her husband alone as the person who had set her ablazed by pouring kerosene oil on her. In the statement of the deceased recorded by the SDM, no accusation of demand of dowry was made by the deceased either against her husband or any other member of his family. The case against the accused persons was initially registered under Section 307 IPC but after death of the deceased on 12.06.2009 in the hospital, the FIR was converted from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC. The SDM, in the course of inquest proceedings, had also recorded the statement of the father of the deceased on 18.06.2009 and this was done after six days of the death of the deceased. The father of the deceased in his statement given to the SDM accused the petitioner as the person who was allegedly harassing the deceased in connection with demand of dowry. As per statement of the deceased to the SDM on 05.06.2009 i.e. the statement given by her seven days before the date of her death, she has not attributed any role to the petitioner. As per her statement, she was set ablazed by her husband in the incident that took place in his factory on 03.06.2009. 4 There are accusations of demand of dowry against the petitioner who is the father in law of the deceased and these accusations have been made against him by the father of the deceased in his statement given to the SDM after six days of the date of death of the deceased. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that in case there was any truth in the accusations of the father of the deceased that the petitioner had also been harassing the deceased in connection with demand of dowry than he should have made these accusations immediately after the incident that took place on 03.06.2009. The incident had taken place within two months of the marriage of the Bail Application No. 226/2010 Page 2 of 3 deceased. I would not like to make any comment on the merits of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that he has been falsely roped by the father of the deceased after more than six days of her death. 5 The petitioner is stated to be an old person of 65 years of age and is stated to be in judicial custody since 18.06.2009. He is stated to have clean antecedents and is stated to have roots in the society. There is no apprehension of his fleeing from justice. 6 In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for releasing him on bail till he is found guilty of charges for which he has to face trial. He is ordered to be released on bail on his executing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court. Any observation contained in this order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case and should not influence the trial. Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. APRIL 19, 2010 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'a' Bail Application No. 226/2010 Page 3 of 3