BAIL APPLN./977/2016 of HARSH CHAWLA Vs THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 977/2016

HARSH CHAWLA..... PetitionerThrough:Mr. Ajay Burman, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Sadhvi Gaur and Mr. Amitesh Raj,Advs.Through:Mr. Ajay Burman, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Sadhvi Gaur and Mr. Amitesh Raj,Advs.

versus

THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)

..... Respondent

Through:Mr. Sudershan Joon, APP for State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAKO R R

%14.07.2016

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner ismother-in-law of the deceased who committed suicide after three months ofher marriage. It was love marriage between the deceased and petitioner’sson. Deceased and petitioner’s son were living separately at DefenceColony; whereas petitioner had been living with her husband at Meera Bagh,Paschim Vihar, Delhi. Even in the suicide note, deceased has not allegedany torture by the petitioner on the ground of demand of dowry orotherwise. As per the suicide note, when deceased told the petitioner thatshe was being ill-treated by her husband, petitioner did not advice her sonnot to do so; instead she suggested that deceased should be more

accommodating.

Learned APP for the State submits that it was the moral and legalobligation of the petitioner to had advised her son to behave properly andsince she did not do so she is deemed to had harassed the deceased.Learned APP concedes that petitioner was living separately, inasmuch as, itwas love marriage between the petitioner’s son and deceased.LearnedAPP submits that charge-sheet has been filed thereafter this application hasbecame infructuous.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on thejudgment dated 22[nd]August, 2012 passed in bail application 968/2011 titledSharad Kumar Aggarwal vs. State and judgment dated 15[th]December, 2010passed in bail application 1858/2001 titled Harpal Singh vs. State of NCT ofDelhi, to contend that mere filing of charge-sheet will not make theanticipatory bail application infructuous.

I have perused the judgments relied upon by the petitioner wherein ithas been held that there is no justification to deny the anticipatory bail onthe ground of filing of the charge-sheet.

Keeping in mind the rival contentions of the parties and the facts andcircumstances as detailed above, it is ordered that in case of arrest petitioner

be released on anticipatory bail subject to her furnishing personal bond in

the sum of `25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of

the Arresting Officer/Investigation Officer/SHO concerned.

Bail application is disposed of in the above terms.

Dasti.

JULY 14, 2016ga

A.K. PATHAK, J.