Delhi High Court - Orders

Lalita vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 14 May, 2025

Author:
Neena Bansal Krishna

Bench:
Neena Bansal Krishna

$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1387/2025
LALITA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate
with Mr Siddharth S. Yadav,
Mr. Rahul Sambher, Mr. Kashish
Ahjuja, Mr. Ayush Kumar Singh,
Mr. Rahul Yadav, Ms. Sneha
Bakshiram, Ms. Rekha Punya,
Ms. Sana Singh, Ms. Vasundhra N.,
Mr. Aman Akhtar and Mr. Vinayak
Gautam, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for
the State with Insp. Rajesh Meena,
PS: Palam Village.
Mr. Nikhil, Mr. Punit and Mr. Jatin
Tyage, Advs. for complainant with
complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER

% 14.05.2025

1. First Bail Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile
Section 438
of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, Lalita seeking
grant of Anticipatory Bail in Case FIR No. 0705/2024 dated 03.12.2024
under
Sections 498A
/
/
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section
/
/
3(5)
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2025 registered at Police Station:

Palam Village.

2. The Applicant is the Bua of the accused Pankaj Lamba who is
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 30/06/2025 at 02:23:29
absconding. Essentially allegations against her are that before finalization of
the marriage, she along with other family members had demanded dowry. In
September, 2024, they had gone to the house of the Complainant and
threatened him to make his daughter withdraw her complaint in UK and also
demanded Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. It is submitted that the Petitioner has been implicated falsely in this
case. She is the aunt (bua) of the main accused Pankaj Lamba, husband of
the deceased who is daughter of the Complainant, apprehending arrest in the
aforesaid FIR. She has sought Bail on the grounds that the bare perusal of
the FIR reveals that the allegations made by the Complainant are general
and sweeping against the Applicant, who had no nexus with the
Complainant's daughter. It is the own case of the prosecution that the
deceased left her matrimonial home only after a few days and joined her
husband in U.K. There was no opportunity for the Applicant to treat the
deceased with cruelty or to harass her or demand dowry.

4. Initially, the FIR was registered under
Sections 498A
/
/
IPC, but
subsequently
Section 304B
IPC has been added. It is claimed that it has been
added wrongly since the Applicant had no nexus with the Complainant's
daughter nor she had subjected her to any kind of cruelty or harassment in
relations to dowry demand.

5. The Anticipatory Bail Application of the Applicant has been
dismissed by learned Sessions Court on 01.04.2025. It is submitted that FIR
does not disclose any allegation of cruelty or harassment at the instance of
the applicant inverted soon before the debt, which resulted in the dowry debt
with the deceased.

6. Reliance has been placed upon
Manohar Lal vs. State of Haryana,
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 30/06/2025 at 02:23:29
(2014) 9 SCC 645, wherein, the Apex Court observed that facts must show
existence of proximate live link between the effect of cruelty based on
dowry demand and death of victim. The Applicant being in India, had no
knowledge of what transpired between the deceased and her husband Pankaj
Lamba, the main accused.

7. Reliance has also been placed upon
Balwant Singh and Anr. vs. State
of Punjab
, (2004) 7 SCC 724, wherein, the Apex Court has noted that one
of the ingredients of the offence under
Section 304B
IPC is that such cruelty
should have been meted out to the deceased soon before her death. It is for
the prosecution to establish, affirmatively that the victim was subjected to
cruelty and harassment based on dowry demand soon before her death. In
the present case, at least for a year and 3 months had lapsed before her death
and there is no evidence even to remotely suggest that the victim was
subjected to cruelty or harassment of the nature specified in
Section 304B

IPC.

8. The Applicant, in fact, had always treated the deceased with love and
respect and husband of the applicant had also transferred approximately
Rs.15 lacs to the account of the deceased, so as to facilitate her visa for U.K.
It is further submitted that she has clean antecedents and she undertakes not
to flee from justice and is ready to abide by any conditions may be imposed.
Hence, Anticipatory Bail is sought in FIR No. 0705/2024.

9. The Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein, it
had been claimed that complainant's daughter died on 14.11.2024 in U.K.
As per the post-mortem report, it was stated that the deceased died due to
manual strangulation, which is homicide in nature.

10. The Letter Rogatory under
Section 166-A
Cr.P.C. sent to the
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 30/06/2025 at 02:23:29
Director of Prosecution has been approved and is uploaded on MHA portal
for purpose of further proceedings. It is further submitted that Lalita, the
Applicant had been granted interim protection vide order dated 08.04.2025
by this Court, who had directed that no coercive action be taken against the
Petitioner. She joined the investigation and interrogated in detail, but she did
not give any information about the main accused Pankaj Lamba, husband of
deceased. During investigation, the bank account details were collected and
mobile phones were recovered from the accused persons, which have been
sent to FSL.

11. The Anticipatory Bail Application is opposed on the ground of there
being specific allegations against the Applicant for demand of dowry and
harassment. The statement of the father of the deceased has been recorded,
wherein, he has stated that the husband of the Applicant along with his
relatives had come to his house and threatened him to withdraw the
Complaint which was filed by the father of deceased against her husband
Pankaj Lamba. Serious offence has been committed, wherein, Pankaj
Lamba, husband of deceased has been charged by U.K. Police with murder
of his wife, Harshita Barella. The main accused Pankaj Lamba has been
declared Proclaimed Offender and an award of Rs.50,000/- has been
announced for his arrest. Furthermore, the Petitioner has joined investigation
on 04.04.205, 06.04.2025, 13.04.2025 and 29.04.2025, but she did not give
any information about Pankaj Lamba. The Bail Application is therefore
opposed.

12. Learned counsel for the Complainant has stated that Pankaj Lamba,
the main accused, had been brought up since childhood by the Applicant and
her husband Satinder Kumar (Bua and Fufa) and they have close relation
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 30/06/2025 at 02:23:29
with the deceased at the time of finalisation of marriage. They both along
with the parents had demanded for dowry. Even later in September 2024,
threat had been extended to the parents of the deceased to ask her to
withdraw her Complaint filed by her with the U.K. Police and demand of
Rs.5 lacs was made. It is therefore submitted that in view of the serious
dowry harassment allegations and the murder of the deceased in U.K., the
Bail may not be granted to the Applicant.

13. Submissions heard and record perused.

14. Considering the nature of allegations and the fact that the deceased
had left for UK soon after the marriage and the fufaji had transferred amount
of Rs.15,00,000/- in her account to facilitate her in getting visa, it is
directed that in the event of his arrest, the Petitioner shall be admitted to
Anticipatory Bail by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer, subject to
the following conditions:-

(i) The Petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer.

(ii) The Petitioner shall join the investigations, as and when called
by the Investigating Officer and shall co-operate during the
investigations.

(iii) The Petitioner shall furnish her cellphone number to the
Investigating Officer on which he may be contacted at any time and
shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched-on at all
times.

(iv) The Petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any
inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or
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 30/06/2025 at 02:23:29
other persons acquainted with the facts of case.

(v) The Petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise
indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice
the proceedings in the pending trial.

15. The Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

16. Copy of the Order be sent to the learned Trial Court for compliance.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

MAY 14, 2025/R
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 30/06/2025 at 02:23:29