Delhi High Court - Orders

Raghubir Singh @ Raghuveer Singh Mehto vs State Of Nct Of Delhi Through Sho Madhu ... on 7 March, 2024

$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 304/2024

RAGHUBIR SINGH @ RAGHUVEER SINGH
MEHTO ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chayan Sarkar and
Mr. Shailendra Kumar,
Advs.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO
MADHU VIHAR POLICE STATION, EAST
DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the
State with Insp. Sandeep
Rathi, PS Madhu Vihar.
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr.
Prashant Rana and Mr.
Shubham Thakur, Advs.
for the complainant.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER

% 07.03.2024

1. The present petition is filed under
Section 439
of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (
CrPC
), seeking grant of regular
bail, in FIR No. 315/2023 dated 08.07.2023, registered at Police
Station Madhu Vihar, for offences under
Sections
498A
/
/
304B
/
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (
IPC
).

2. The FIR was registered on a complaint given by the
brother of the deceased.

3. It is stated that the marriage between the complainant's
sister and the son of the applicant took place on 27.04.2021. It is
alleged that soon after the marriage, the deceased was subjected

BAIL APPLN. 304/2024 Page 1 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/03/2024 at 21:15:02
to cruelty and physical assault by her husband and his family
members on a regular basis.

4. It is alleged that on 05.07.2023, at around 10:00 p.m., the
deceased was beaten and was confined in a room. Thereafter,
when her health deteriorated, she was taken to GTB Hospital on
the same day.

5. The deceased succumbed to her injuries on 07.07.2023.

6. It is alleged that the deceased was threatened on a regular
basis by her husband and his family members. On 08.07.2023,
the complainant was informed by his other sister that the
deceased was beaten by her husband and his family members.

7. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted on
09.07.2023 which revealed fifteen external and various internal
injuries that had been inflicted on the deceased. The opinion in
the postmortem report stipulated that the death of the deceased
occurred due to coma as a result of antemortem cerebral damage
consequent upon blunt force impact to the head and all injuries
were antemortem in nature and produced by blunt force.

8. During the course of investigation, subsequent opinion
from the autopsy surgeon on the postmortem report was also
obtained, which showed that various injuries were caused three
to four days prior to the death and these injuries were inflicted by
hitting the head of the deceased on the wall and by slapping her.

9. The charge sheet in the present case has already been filed.

10. On the receipt of the present complaint, enquiry under

Section 176
of the CrPC was initiated and the statement of the
complainant was recorded. In the said statement, it was stated
that the deceased was 8 months' pregnant and was constantly
beaten by her husband under the influence of alcohol. It was also
stated that on 05.07.2023, the other sister of the complainant had

BAIL APPLN. 304/2024 Page 2 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/03/2024 at 21:15:02
received a video-call from the deceased at around 12 midnight, in
which she was crying a lot and told her that her husband had
beaten her and she was in a lot of pain and was also vomiting.

11. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
submits that the applicant is the Father-in-Law of the deceased
and the allegations are primarily against the husband of the
deceased (son of the applicant).

12. He submits that since the beginning of the marriage, the
deceased was living separately on the first floor with her husband
and the applicant used to reside on the ground floor.

13. He further submits that the FIR was initially registered
under
Sections 323
/
/
/
of the IPC and it was only upon
the unfortunate death of the deceased that,
Sections 304(B)
and
of the IPC were added in the chargesheet.

14. He submits that from the bare perusal of the chargesheet,
even if the allegations are prima facie taken to be correct, the
applicant can be tried only under
Section 498A
of the IPC. He
submits that the applicant had readily surrendered and cooperated
with the investigation.

15. He submits that the charge sheet in the present case has
already been filed and the applicant is in custody since
10.07.2023 and no purpose would be served by keeping the
applicant in further incarceration.

16. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has
opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the allegations are
very heinous in nature and there are specific allegations against
the applicant.

17. He submits that the postmortem report indicated that the
deceased was beaten and was not provided any medical help at

BAIL APPLN. 304/2024 Page 3 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/03/2024 at 21:15:02
the most needed time.

18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

19.
Section 304B
of IPC reads as under:

"304B. Dowry death
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or
bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is
shown that soon before her death she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and
such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused
her death. Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-

section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in

section 2
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
Imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."

20. The presumption in law of a 'dowry death' is meant to act
as a deterrent to the demand of dowry and to ensure that there is
no victimization because of that. The basic ingredient to attract
the provisions of
Section 304B
, IPC, is, firstly, that the death of
the woman should have occurred under circumstances which are
not normal. The conviction, by applying the provisions of

Section 304B
, IPC, is essentially based on the presumption that
would necessarily mean that circumstances which are not normal
or essentially the one where the reason of death is not
ascertained.

21. The interpretation of
Sections 304B
and
498A
IPC came
up for consideration in
Baijnath v. State of M.P
: (2017 1 SCC

101). The relevant paras are extracted below:-

BAIL APPLN. 304/2024 Page 4 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/03/2024 at 21:15:02

25. Whereas in the offence of dowry death defined by Section
304-B of the Code, the ingredients thereof are:

(i) death of the woman concerned is by any burns or bodily
injury or by any cause other than in normal circumstances,
and

(ii) is within seven years of her marriage, and

(iii) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband for,
or in connection with, any demand for dowry.

The offence under Section 498-A of the Code is attracted qua
the husband or his relative if she is subjected to cruelty. The
Explanation to this Section exposits "cruelty" as:

(i) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to
drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical), or

(ii) harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand.

26.Patently thus, cruelty or harassment of the lady by her
husband or his relative for or in connection with any demand
for any property or valuable security as a demand for dowry
or in connection therewith is the common constituent of both
the offences.

27. The expression "dowry" is ordained to have the same
meaning as in
Section 2
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The expression "cruelty", as explained, contains in its
expanse, apart from the conduct of the tormentor, the
consequences precipitated thereby qua the lady subjected
thereto. Be that as it may, cruelty or harassment by the
husband or any relative of his for or in connection with any
demand of dowry, to reiterate, is the gravamen of the two
offences.

22. The law presumes that deaths which are not normal, if had
happened within seven years of the date of marriage and the
victim was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of
dowry made before her death would be termed as dowry death.
The allegations of cruelty levelled against the applicant will be
tested in trial and at this stage considering an application for bail
only the parameters enshrined in that regard are to be considered.

23. In the present case there are no specific allegations against
the applicant in regard to the demand of dowry soon before the
death of the victim. It is true that general allegations have been

BAIL APPLN. 304/2024 Page 5 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/03/2024 at 21:15:02
levelled of the victim being subjected to cruelty and physical
assault by her husband and his family members, however, no
specific allegation has been made against the applicant in regard
to the cruelty in connection with any demand of dowry soon
before the death of the victim.

24. It has specifically been alleged that the victim was
subjected to physical assault by her husband soon before her
death. It is alleged that the victim had made a phone call to her
sister two days before her death complaining that her husband
had beaten her and she was in lot of pain and was also vomiting.
It is not alleged that the victim was physically assaulted by the
applicant.

25. It was contended that the applicant was also responsible
since he did not provide the timely medical help to the victim.
The learned counsel for the applicant, however, pointed out that
the applicant has been staying on a separate floor and was,
therefore, not aware of the victim being physically assaulted by
his son. The allegation and the defence in this regard would be
tested during the course of the trial.

26. The object of jail is to secure the appearance of the
accused persons during the trial. The object is neither punitive
nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered
as a punishment. The applicant cannot be made to spend the
entire period of trial in custody especially when the trial is likely
to take considerable time. The presence of the accused can be
secured at the time of trial by putting appropriate conditions.

27. Without commenting further on the merits of the case,
keeping the facts and circumstances in mind and the fact that the
trial is likely to take some time, I am satisfied that the applicant
has made out a case for grant of regular bail.

BAIL APPLN. 304/2024 Page 6 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/03/2024 at 21:15:03

28. The applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail
on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- with one surety
of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of learned Trial
Court / Duty Metropolitan Magistrate on the following
conditions:

a. He shall under not leave the country without the
permission of the learned Trial Court;

b. He shall appear before the learned Trial Court on
every date of hearing;

c. He shall not, in any manner, try to contact any of the
witnesses;

d. He shall upon his release provide his mobile number
to the investigating officer/SHO which shall be kept
in working condition at all times.

29. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/ complaint
lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek
redressal by filing an appropriate application for cancellation of
bail.

30. It is clarified that the observations made in the present
order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application,
and should not influence the outcome of the Trial. The said
observations should not be taken as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.

31. The present application is allowed in aforementioned
terms.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J
MARCH 7, 2024
'KDK'/HK

BAIL APPLN. 304/2024 Page 7 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/03/2024 at 21:15:03