BAIL APPLN./2517/2015 of ANITA SHARMA Vs THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIJudsment delivered on : December 18, 2015

+BAIL APPLN. 2517/2015

ANITA SHARMAPetitionerThrough:Mr.SameerChandra,Mr.KuldeepSingh, Mr.S.C. Mohan Mehata &Mr.Zubair Raza, Advocates.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1.By this petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 482of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks anticipatory

bail ina case registered as FIR No. 1176/2015 under Section 498-A/304-B/306/34of IPC Police Station Dabri, Delhi.

2.In this case, the petitioner is the jethani (sister-in-law) of thedeceasedAnuradha,whowasmarriedtoVimalSharmaon

BailAppln.2517/2015

Page 1 of 8

10.02.2015and on 25.08.2015Anuradhacommittedsuicide, i.e.,within six months, of marriage.

3.On the statement made before SDM, Najafgarh by GovindSahai Tiwari - father of the deceased, case under Section 498-A/304-B/306/34 of IPG was registered against the in-laws of thedeceased Anuradha.

4.As per the contentsof FIR, complainantGovind Sahai Tiwarihas stated that marriage of his daughter Anuradha (since deceased)was solemnised with Vimal Sharma on 10.02.2015 and after themarriageshe was residingwith her husbandin jointfamilyat VijayEnclave.Aftereight days of marriage,he took Anuradhato his homesince she had to appear in12^*" class examination. Thereafter,Anuradhadid not go back to her matrimonialhome. notice fi-om alawyer regarding divorce wasreceived later on.Thereaftercomplainant lodged case in Women Cell, Kirti Nagar, and on22.07.2015matter got settled between them and Vimal (husbandofAnuradha),his brother and his brother-in-law(Jija) took Anuradhaback. Complainanthas ftirther stated that on 12.08.2015,Anuradhaand her husband Vimal came to his home and on 23.08.2015 he went

Bail Appln.2517/2015

to meet Anuradhaand talked to her and she said that she had noproblem from her in-laws but she was looking disturbed. On25.08.2015,complainantreceiveda call from Avinash Sharma whocalled him and his wife within five minutes to Vijay Enclave.Complainantalone reachedthere and he found that huge crowd andpolice were gatheredthere. In the presence of complainant,familymembersand policewent to 2"^* floor ofthe house where door oftheroom was bolted from inside. Some of the police officials broke openthe window of the room and opened the door from inside andcomplainantfound Anuradhahanging with saree on the ceiling fan.Police Officialsbroughther down and her dead body was takento thehospital.

5.Mr.Sameer Chandra, counsel for the petitioner contended thatthe petitioneris 28 years of age and she is havingclean antecedents,two minorchildren,oneboyof 3 years and one girl of 6 years andshewas living separatelyon anotherfloor of the same house. It is furthercontendedon behalf of the petitionerthat the petitionerwas not at thematrimonial home since 06.08.2015 as she had gone to her brother'shouseto extendhelp as her brotherand his wife has beenblessedwithBailAppln.2517/2015Page 3of8

baby, whereas the deceased committed suicide on 25.08.2015.

6.While adverting to the contents of the FIR, counsel for thepetitioner contend that the petitioner is not specificallynamed in theFIR and even in the statement recorded before the SDM, wherein thecomplainant - father of the deceased has specifically stated thatAnuradha has never complained against her in-laws (sasural wale)and also drew attention towards the remark given by the learnedExecutive Magistrate, Dwarka that ''As per the recorded statement ofSh. Govind Sahay and Kusum Tiwari no foul play noticed." It isfurther contended on behalf of the petitioner that the deceased livedfor only 3 days in the matrimonial home and she did not return backafterher 12^^ exams.giving

7.Counsel for the petitioner also placed on record the printout ofthe FACE BOOK account of the deceased showing that the deceasedwanted to marry another boy and she wanted to divorce Vimal.Attention is also drawn to the printout of the SMS, alongwith phone,sent by the deceased on 11.03.2015 at 10.27 min, in which thedeceased sent sms to her husband'Tm mujhe devorce de do." It isalso submitted that on 17.05.2015, in family meeting the deceased

Bail Appln. 2517/2015

herself wrote, in front of her family members that she wanted to givedivorceto her husbandand also drew attentionof the Court to thenote.

8.It is thereafter, that on 28.05.2015 the husband of deceased senta legal notice to the deceased to come forward to file the petition fordivorce by way of mutual consent as per her wishes. It is contendedon behalf of the petitioner that the father of the deceased has lodgedfalse complaint against the in-laws of deceased as the deceased herselfadmitted in telephonic conversation with her husband Vimal that thecomplaint was false. In support of his contention, the relevant excerptin the form of transcript of the telephonic conversation in Hindibetween the deceased and her husband Vimal has also been filed. It iscontended that the marriage of the deceased was solemnisedwith/Vimal by the parents of deceased, against her wishes. It is furthercontended that there is no allegation against the petitioner of causingany cruelty to the deceased and there is no evidence that the deceased. was ever subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection withdemand of dowry and there is no evidence that any cruelty orharassment in connection with demand of dowry is shown to haveBail Appln.2517/2015Page 5 of 8

been meted out to the deceased.It is further submitted that no noticeunder Section 160 Cr. P.C. has been served upon the petitioner forjoiningthe investigationand the petitioneris alwaysreadyto join theinvestigationas and when required. It is further contendedthat norecoveryis to be affectedfrom the petitionerandtherefore,there is norequirement for custodial interrogation.

9.In supportof his contentions,counsel for the petitionerrelied

upon the following judgments

i)M.P. Lohia vs. State of WestBengal & Anr., AIR 2005SC 790;SC 790;

ii)VedPrakash Yadav vs. State, 2005 (3) JCC1627;

ill)Smt. Inderjit Kaur vs. The State, 2005 (2) JCC 720;

iv)Narayanamurthy vs. State of Karnataka and another,(2010) 4 see (Cri) 322;(2010) 4 see (Cri) 322;

v)Saurav Kumar Garg vs. State,II (2014)DLT (Crl) 630;

vi)Sarla Devi vs. State of NCT of Delhi, III (2015) DLT(Crl) 449;(Crl) 449;

vii)SiddharamSatlingappa Mhetrevs.StateofMaharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694;Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694;viii)Courton its own motionvs. CBI, 2004 (1) JCC308.

10.The petitioneralso moved an applicationbefore the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, seeking anticipatorybail and the TrialBailAppln.2517/2015Page6of8

Court vide order dated 06.11.2015 has rejected the same keeping inview the seriousnessof offence and statementsof witnesses/relativesof the deceased.Aggrievedby the said order, the petitioner haspreferred the present petition.

11.I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for thepetitioner and have gone through the status report, impugned orderand the material placed on record.

12.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,and after going through the record of this case as well as thejudgments relied upon by the petitioner, this court observes that all theaccused persons are in custody and warrants against the petitioner hasbeen issued. She is still absconding and that the charge under Section304-B of IPC is framed against the petitioner and other co-accusedpersons and thus, this Court does not find this case to be fit case forgrant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

13.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the presentcase, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner - Anita Sharmadoes not deserve the concessionof bail in this case, at this stage.Accordingly, the present application filed by the petitioner - AnitayBailAppln.2517/2015Page7 of 8

Sharma is dismissed at this stage.

14.It goes without saying that the expression of any opinion madehereinbefore shall not be treated as an expression on the merits of thecase.

15.In view of the aforesaid observations,the present petitionstands disposed of.

(PS.TEJI)

DECEMBER 18,2015pkb

Bail Appln. 2517/2015