Bail to be denied if the death was an unnatural death and soon before the death the deceased was subjected to cruelty : Delhi High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING Pronounced on : 26.08.2021 BAIL APPLN. 1817 2021 & CRL. M.A. 8241 2021 STATE THROUGH DELHI ADMINISTRATION .... Respondent Through: Mr. R.K. Thakur Mr. Nain Talwar Rishabh Kr. Thakur Advs Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya APP for the State with Insp. Mohinder Singh PS Shastri Park Metro Mr. Anant Kr. Vatsya and Mr. Nand Kishore Sharma Advs. for informant HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR RAJNISH BHATNAGAR J The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 10 2020 under Section 304B 498A 34 IPC registered at P.S. Shastri Park Metro BAIL APPLN. 1817 2021 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.08.2020 an information vide DD No. 23A at 03.17 PM regarding a woman who was not responding inside from Flat No. 316 3rd Floor Transit Hostel DMRC Near Shastri Park Metro Station Delhi was received in police station Shastri Park Metro Delhi. The aforesaid DD entry was marked to IO ASI Vinod Kumar who had reached the spot along with W Ct In the meantime Ct. Sule Chand had also reached the spot after receiving the aforesaid information. The main door of the flat was found closed from inside and no response was receiving from inside On this IO had pushed the door with the help of police staff Sujeet KumarHarish Chander DMRC Security Guard and Sonu Kumar the resident of Transit Hostel and had entered in the aforesaid flat. It was found that the wife of petitioner namely Jyoti Kumari was hanging with the help of blue plastic rope knotted with ceiling fan and her legs were on two plastic chairs in the bed room On making inquiry from petitioner it came to notice that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Jyoti Kumari on 14.06.2019. Hence the SDM Seelampur was informed on mobile about the incident. On this SDM Seelampur had deputed Sh. Dalbir Singh Executive MagistrateDelhi had recorded the statements of Sh. Sanjay Kumar and Smt. Gauri Rani the father mother of the deceased on 16.08.2020. Thereafter postmortem of the dead body of Jyoti Kumari was got conducted by Executive MagistrateDelhi on same day in the mortuary GTB Hospital Delhi and after postmortem the dead body of Jyoti Kumari was handed over to the parents and other relatives for funeral On 17.08.2020 Sh. Dalbir Singh Executive Magistrate Seelampur) Delhi had handed over his report vide No. F statements of Sh. Sanjay Kumar and Smt. Gauri Rani the father mother of deceased Jyoti Kumari to IO ASI Vinod Kumar for taking further legal action. On the basis of statement of Sh. Sanjay Kumar father of deceased Jyoti Kumari recorded by Executive MagistrateBAIL APPLN. 1817 2021 Delhi the present case vide FIR No 10 20 dated 17 08 2020 U S 498A 304B 34 IPC was registered I have heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner Ld. APP for the State and have also gone through the records of this case It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that as per the last message received by the brother of the deceased she had because she suspected her husband of having relations with different ladies and whenever she confronted him in this regard she was badly beaten by him It is further submitted by the Ld counsel for the petitioner that in the entire suicide note there is not even a whisper of dowry demand by the petitioner or any of his family It is further submitted that the entire allegations alleged against the petitioner do not fall within the purview of ingredients of Section 304 B IPC It is further submitted by him that the petitioner was on duty at the time of the incident and he has been falsely On the other hand it is submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that at this stage the suicide note and the statement of the father of the deceased cannot be read in isolation. There are allegations of demand of dowry. The death has taken place on 14.08.2020 i.e. within 7 years of marriage. The death is an unnatural death and soon before the death the deceased was subjected to cruelty so it cannot be said that the BAIL APPLN. 1817 2021 ingredients of Section 304 B IPC are not fulfilled in the present case It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that the material witnesses are yet to be examined and a young girl has lost his life because of the conduct of the petitioner and his family members The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the father of the deceased who has categorically stated that at the time of marriage Rs. 15 Lakh were spent on jewellery furniture etc. and Rs. 4 lakh were spent on the welcome of baraties. No doubt the father of the deceased states that after six months of the marriage things were normal but according to him as brother of the petitioner has made a house in Delhi so the petitioner also wanted to have a house in Delhi so he started demanding Rs. 10 Lakh from the deceased. According to the statement of father of deceased Jyoti Kumari she was even threatened with life when the demand of Rs. 10 Lakh was not fulfilled and he also stated that the petitioner was having illegal relationship with his bhabi Simpy and one another girl at his 10. The brother of the deceased has also produced a voice message recorded by the victim prior to her death which also narrates her mental state and as to how disturbed she was. The material witnesses in this case are yet to be examined. So keeping in view the facts at this stage no ground for bail of the petitioner is made out. The bail application is BAIL APPLN. 1817 2021 therefore dismissed and Crl. M.A. 8241 2021 is also disposed of Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of any opinion on the merits of this case RAJNISH BHATNAGAR J AUGUST 26 2021 BAIL APPLN. 1817 2021 Page 

Summary: The burden of dowry and torturous spouse is exceedingly excruciating creating immense physical and mental pain, and such circumstances and accused cannot be treated lightly. This was held in the judgment passed by a single bench judge comprising JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, in the matter SUJEET KUMAR V. STATE THROUGH DELHI ADMINISTRATION, dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. It was found that the wife of petitioner namely Jyoti Kumari was hanging. Counsel for the petitioner that as per the last message received by the brother of the deceased, she had committed suicide because she suspected her husband of having relations with different ladies and whenever, she confronted him in this regard she was badly beaten by him. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that in the entire suicide note there is not even a whisper of dowry demand by the petitioner or any of his family member. It is further submitted that the entire allegations alleged against the petitioner do not fall within the purview of ingredients of Section 304 B IPC. It is further submitted by him that the petitioner was on duty at the time of the incident and he has been falsely implicated. Ld. APP for the State submitted that the suicide note and the statement of the father of the deceased cannot be read in isolation. There are allegations of demand of dowry. The death has taken place on 14.08.2020 i.e. within 7 years of marriage. The death is an unnatural death and soon before the death the deceased was subjected to cruelty, so it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 304 B IPC are not fulfilled in the present case. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that the material witnesses are yet to be examined and a young girl has lost his life because of the conduct of the petitioner and his family members. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the father of the deceased who has categorically stated that at the time of marriage Rs. 15 Lakh were spent on jewellery, furniture etc. and Rs. 4 lakh were spent on the welcome of baraties. No doubt, the father of the deceased states that after six months of the marriage things were normal but according to him as brother of the petitioner has made a house in Delhi, so the petitioner also wanted to have a house in Delhi so he started demanding Rs. 10 Lakh from the deceased. According to the statement of father of deceased Jyoti Kumari, she was even threatened with life when the demand of Rs. 10 Lakh was not fulfilled and he also stated that the petitioner was having illegal relationship. After hearing both the parties The hon’ble Delhi High court dismissed the petition as The brother of the deceased has also produced a voice message recorded by the victim prior to her death which also narrates her mental state and as to how disturbed she was. The material witnesses in this case are yet to be examined. So keeping in view the facts, at this stage, no ground for bail of the petitioner is made out.