Delhi High Court - Orders

Kapil Yadav vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 March, 2024

$~78
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 125/2024 & CRL.M.A. 1017/2024
KAPIL YADAV ..... Applicant
Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Senior
Advocate with Mr.
Inderpreet Singh, Ms.
Manisha and Mr. Tushar
Rohmetra, Advs.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP
for the State with Insp. L.
N. Saini and SI Naveen,
PS Palam Village.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER

% 07.03.2024

1. The present application is filed under
Section 439
of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (
CrPC
), seeking regular bail
in FIR No. 318/2022 dated 21.06.2022, registered at Palam
Village, for offences under
Sections 304B
/
498A
/
of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (
IPC
).

2. The present FIR was registered at the instance of Sh. Vijay
Kumar, father of the deceased, namely, Pushpalata, against her
husband, namely, Kapil Yadav / applicant, and his family
members, alleging that the deceased was subjected to harassment
and cruelty by her husband and his family members.

3. On 12.05.2022, an information was received vide DD No.
87A in respect of the suicide attempt by the wife of the applicant
(deceased) by hanging herself to a ceiling fan. She was thereafter
taken to the hospital by her husband wherein she was declared
unfit for giving a statement. Her In-Laws simultaneously
informed the complainant about the said incident and asked him
to come to Delhi. Since the deceased had been married only for

BAIL APPLN. 125/2024 Page 1 of 8

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 22/03/2024 at 22:14:31
about one year, the SDM was informed.

4. It is alleged by the complainant that the deceased and the
applicant got married on 26.04.2021. The deceased was
subjected to cruelty and harassment and was also tortured for
dowry within a few days of marriage. A car and ₹2,00,000/- were
demanded by the applicant and his parents and they even tried to
strangulate the deceased. The complainant's daughter died after
forty days of hospitalization, that is, on 21.06.2022.

5. The complainant alleged that his daughter had been killed
by the applicant and his parents which led to the registration of
the present FIR.

6. During the course of the investigation, the statements of
the family members of the deceased were recorded under
Section
of the CrPC wherein they made specific allegations against
the husband/ applicant, Mother-in-Law, and Father-in-Law of the
deceased. It was alleged that the deceased was harassed by the
applicant and her In-Laws for dowry. They demanded a car and
₹2,00,000/- and often taunted her and even tried to strangulate
her. Due to the alleged behavior of the applicant and his parents,
the deceased was compelled to commit suicide.

7. The applicant was arrested on 22.06.2022 and the co-
accused Shri Satya Narayan (Father-in-Law of the deceased) and
Shrimati Suman (Mother-in-Law of the deceased) were arrested
on 14.10.2022.

8. On 17.08.2022, the charge sheet in the present case has
been filed qua the applicant under
Sections 304B
/
498A
/
of the
IPC.

9. Vide order dated 13.10.2022, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-2, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, passed the order on
charge qua the applicant under
Sections 304B
/
498A
/
of the

BAIL APPLN. 125/2024 Page 2 of 8

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 22/03/2024 at 22:14:31

IPC
.

10. The applicant had preferred two bail applications before
the learned Trial Court, which were dismissed, firstly, on
12.07.2023 and, then on 18.12.2023. Being aggrieved, the
applicant has preferred the present application.

11. The learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that
the applicant and the deceased shared a good relationship with
each other and she never complained of any altercations or
disputes. The allegations of cruelty and demand for dowry are
made for the first time in the present FIR. He submits that there
was no demand for dowry by the applicant or any of his family
members soon before the death of the deceased.

12. He submits that the deceased shared a cordial relationship
with her in-laws and they used to encourage her to pursue her
further studies. Furthermore, they were the ones who on seeing
the deceased hanging from the fan, untangled her, rushed her to
the hospital, and attended to her needs during her hospitalisation.

13. He submits that the deceased committed suicide due to her
hyper and sensitive nature which is evident from the fact that on
an earlier occasion also, she tried to pressurize the applicant by
cutting her wrist and uploading its photograph on WhatsApp.
The said fact was duly admitted by the complainant during his
examination before the learned Trial Court.

14. He submits that the testimonies of all the material
witnesses have already been recorded in the present case, and
there is no likelihood of the applicant influencing the witnesses.
He further submits that there are inherent contradictions in the
testimony of the complainant recorded before the learned Trial
Court as only vague allegations are made against the applicant
without attributing any specific role in the alleged incident or

BAIL APPLN. 125/2024 Page 3 of 8

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 22/03/2024 at 22:14:31
stating any date/time where any such incident happened.

15. He submits that even though the complainant had met the
SDM on the fateful day on which her daughter committed suicide
i.e., on 12.05.2022, however, he did not raise any grievance on
the said day and had only lodged the complaint after the death of
her daughter.

16. He submits that the investigation is complete and the
chargesheet has already been filed. He states that as per the FSL
Report, nothing incriminating has been found against the
applicant. He further submits that the co-accused persons, being
the parents of the applicant, have already been enlarged on bail
by orders dated 23.05.2023 passed by the learned ASJ-02,
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to
be released on bail on the ground of parity.

17. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State opposes the grant of bail to the present applicant on the
ground that there are serious allegations against him. It is pointed
out that the deceased suffered harassment at the hands of the
applicant and his family members and was compelled to commit
suicide because of their behaviour.

18. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
further submits that by virtue of
Section 113B
of the Indian
Evidence Act,1872, there is a presumption against the applicant
that he caused death owing to the demand for dowry.

19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
perused their record.

20. It is not in dispute that the allegations made by the
complainant are that of demand for a car and ₹2 lakhs from the
deceased. It is further alleged that accused persons harassed her
on several occasions which led to the deceased committing

BAIL APPLN. 125/2024 Page 4 of 8

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 22/03/2024 at 22:14:31
suicide.

21. However, it cannot be disputed that there is no previous
complaint against the applicant with respect to alleged
harassment in relation to the demand for dowry. The statements
of the family members of the deceased are also bereft of any
particulars in terms of the date or time with regard to the
instances of demand for dowry.

22. It is not denied that even though an incident of attempt to
commit suicide took place on 12.05.2021, no complaint or
allegation was made by the complainant till 21.06.2021.

23. The complainant has also stated in his testimony that he
cannot tell any date, month, or an occasion as to when the
demand of ₹2,00,000/- and for a car was raised by the applicant
and his family members. He also has not been able to say as to
which of the accused persons demanded the money and a car.

24.
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.

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."

25. 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

BAIL APPLN. 125/2024 Page 5 of 8

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 22/03/2024 at 22:14:31
harassment by her husband or any of her husband's relative in
connection with any demand for dowry soon before the death.

26. 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 enlarged on bail by the
learned Trial Court. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the
applicant, at this stage, the FSL Report does not point out
towards any incriminating material against the applicant.

27. It is pointed out that only 10 out of 20 prosecution
witnesses have been examined. It is, however, not disputed that
all the prime witnesses have been examined. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in
Sajid Khan v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
: SLP (Crl.)
No. 2290/2023 had granted bail to the accused husband charged
for offences punishable under
Section 498A
and
304B
of the IPC
considering that all the vital witnesses have been examined and
the accused husband was in custody for around 15 months. It
was noted that conclusion of the trial will take some time.

28. 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.

29. Therefore, in the above circumstances, in the absence of
any specific allegation of demand of dowry or causing
harassment to the deceased soon before her death in connection

BAIL APPLN. 125/2024 Page 6 of 8

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 22/03/2024 at 22:14:32
with any demand of dowry; and considering that the applicant
has been in custody since 22.06.2022; and the fact that the
chargesheet has already been filed, I am inclined to grant bail to
the present applicant. Any apprehension of the applicant
absconding or fleeing can also be taken care of by putting
appropriate conditions.

30. 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 a case for the grant of regular bail.

31. In view of the above, the applicant is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹50,000/-
with two sureties 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;

f. The applicant shall, in case of change of residential
address and/or mobile number, intimate the concerned
Investigating Officer regarding the same.

BAIL APPLN. 125/2024 Page 7 of 8

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 22/03/2024 at 22:14:32

32. 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.

33. 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.

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

AMIT MAHAJAN, J
MARCH 7, 2024 / UG

BAIL APPLN. 125/2024 Page 8 of 8

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 22/03/2024 at 22:14:32