Delhi High Court - Orders

Iklash vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 21 March, 2024

$~85
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 4282/2023 & CRL.M.A. 34909/2023
IKLASH ..... Applicant
Through: Mr. Shrey Sharawat, Mr.
Nitesh Ojha, Mr. Abhineet
Singh, Mr. Sahil Yadav,
Ms. Ishita Misra & Mr.
Himanshu Sihag, Advs.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP
for the State along with
Adv. Namrata Singh
SI Sachin Panwar PS-
Fatehpur Beri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER

% 21.03.2024

1. The present application is filed under
Section 439
of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in FIR
No.199/2023 dated 08.05.2023 under
Sections 498A
/
304B
/
of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Fatehpur
Beri

2. The FIR was registered at the instance of the brother of the
deceased, against the present applicant, and his family members,
alleging that the deceased was subjected to harassment and
cruelty by her husband and his family members.

3. On 07.05.2023, an information was received vide DD No.
32A with respect to a suicide being committed by the sister of the
Complainant by hanging herself from an iron pipe attached to a
roof. It is stated that the family members had untied the rope and
laid the body on a cot.

BAIL APPLN. 4282/2023 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 28/03/2024 at 20:57:52

4. It is stated that the marriage between the deceased and the
applicant was solemnized on 27.11.2022. It is alleged that three
days before the wedding, the applicant, along with his uncles
namely, Javed, Irsad, and his mother, demanded a car. It is
alleged that before the marriage a compromise was entered into
pursuant to which apart from dowry articles given in the wedding
ceremony, additionally, a sum of Rs 10 lakhs was handed over in
cash at the time of Vidayi. It is alleged that from the next day
onwards the applicant and his family members started demanding
a Creta Car and also told the deceased to not comeback without
the said Car.

5. It is also alleged that the applicant was not coming to take
the deceased from her paternal home and on 07.05.2023 the
applicant was due to pick up the deceased at around 10:30 AM,
but he didn't arrive and this lead to deceased becoming upset and
hanged herself.

6. The complainant alleged that the deceased took her life
due to the relentless demands for dowry and the harassment
inflicted upon her by the applicant and his family members. The
applicant is in judicial custody since 26.05.2023.

7. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that after the
marriage the deceased only spent 5 to 6 days at her matrimonial
home and thereafter went to her parental house.

8. He submits that the family of the applicant had tried on
various occasions to get the deceased back to her matrimonial
home. He submits that it was the complainant who told the
applicant that he will send the deceased back in two months,
however, later on 05.05.2023 with the intervention of the
mediator to the marriage, the mother and complainant agreed to
send the deceased on 07.05.2023.

BAIL APPLN. 4282/2023 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 28/03/2024 at 20:57:52

9. He submits that there was no previous complaint either by
the deceased or by her family members in respect of any dowry
demand.

10. He submits that on 07.05.2023, even before the applicant
could reach the house of his in-laws, at around 11:30 a.m., the
deceased committed suicide by hanging at her paternal house on
the same day. The MLC bearing no. 3050/ 2023 of the deceased
was prepared, in which it has been recorded that "hesitation cuts
marks on left forearm". He submits that the investigating officer
was also advised by the doctor concerned to seek further
evaluation of the said marks, however the same was not done.

11. He submits that the investigation in present case is
complete and the chargesheet has already been filed.

12. He submits that the from a bare perusal of the FIR,
Chargesheet, statements of the witnesses and the documents
relied upon by the prosecution, no offence under
Section 304B
/

498A
/
/
IPC is made out against the Applicant. He submits
that only the applicant has been kept in Column 11 of the
Chargesheet and his family members in Column 12 for want of
specific allegations against them.

13. He submits that the deceased was engaged in the pre-
marital relationship and no investigation qua the same was
carried by the investigating officer.

14. He further submits that from the perusal of the what's app
chats between the applicant and complainant, which are a part of
the chargesheet, no demand of any car could be ascertained.

15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has
opposed the grant of present bail application. He submits that
complainant has alleged that the just three days prior to the

BAIL APPLN. 4282/2023 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 28/03/2024 at 20:57:53
marriage the applicant and his family members had demanded a
Car in marriage from the family of the deceased.

16. He submits that the complainant had provided a audio
recording with regards to the alleged demand of the car, between
the Asif Ali (brother of the deceased) and Rafeeq / Mediator to
the marriage.

17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

18. It is admitted that the present applicant is the sole accused
in column 11 of the chargesheet and rest all the accused are put in
column 12 of the chargesheet.

19. It is also not in dispute that the deceased had stayed with
the applicant only for a brief period of 5-6 days and the alleged
incident took place in her paternal home. The applicant was
arrested after he had surrendered before the investigating officer
after the dismissal of his anticipatory bail application.

20. It is also stated in the status report that the allegation with
respect to the Rs.10 lakhs being given at the time of vidayi is
controverted since Javed one of the uncles of the applicant had
provided a video which shows that the family of the deceased
gave a sum of rupees two lakhs and eleven thousand only in cash
at that time.

21.
Section 304
of the 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.

BAIL APPLN. 4282/2023 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 28/03/2024 at 20:57:53
Explanation: For the purposes 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."

22. The basic ingredient to attract presumption in terms of

Section 304B
of the IPC is that the death should have occurred
under circumstances which are not normal within seven years of
her marriage and the victim was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any of her husband's relative in
connection with any demand for dowry soon before the death.

23. It is not a case of the prosecution that the applicant or his
family members have been alternatively charged for offences
under Section 302 or 306 of the
IPC
. In fact, the other co-accused
persons are stated to have been kept in column 12 of the
chargesheet. It is also not denied that deceased was not staying
with the applicant at the relevant time. The death occurred at her
parental home.

24. 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 allegations levelled will be
tested in trial and at this stage considering the Application for
Bail only the parameters enshrined in that regard are to be
considered.

25. The applicant is in custody since 26.05.2023, the
chargesheet has already been filed. The trial is at the stage of
Prosecution evidence and is likely to take considerable period of
time.

BAIL APPLN. 4282/2023 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 28/03/2024 at 20:57:53

26. The object of judicial custody is to secure the presence 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. Delay in the commencement and
conclusion of the trial is a factor to be taken into account and the
accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period if the
trial is not likely to be concluded within a reasonable 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 the grant of regular bail.

28. In view of the above, the applicant is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹25,000/-
with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned
Trial Court / Duty MM / Link MM on the following conditions:

a. The applicant shall not leave the country without
prior permission of the learned Trial Court;
b. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and appear
before the learned Trial Court as and when directed;
c. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the present case;
d. The applicant shall not, in any manner, try to contact
any of the witnesses;

e. The applicant shall provide his mobile number to the
concerned Investigating Officer /SHO at the time of
his release and the mobile shall be kept in working
condition at all times;

BAIL APPLN. 4282/2023 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 28/03/2024 at 20:57:53
f. The applicant shall, in case of change of residential
address and/or mobile number, intimate the
concerned Investigating Officer regarding the same.

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 also made clear that the observations made in the
present case are only for the purpose of considering the bail
application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and
also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.

31. The present application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J
MARCH 21, 2024
"SK"

BAIL APPLN. 4282/2023 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 28/03/2024 at 20:57:53