BAIL APPLN./1995/2016 of SUMIT KUMAR Vs STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 1995/2016

SUMIT KUMAR

..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Rajpal Kasana, Adv. withMr.Shaheen Sheikh and Ms.HarshitaSingh, Advs.

versus

STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)..... RespondentThrough:Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for StateSI Ajay Singh, PS-New FriendsColony

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

O R R28.02.2017

This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of thepetitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR No.466/2014, underSections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC, registered at Police Station-New FriendsColony, Delhi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an

innocent person and allegations alleged in FIR No. 466/2014, under Sections498-A/304-B/34 IPC, registered at Police Station- New Friends Colony, Delhiis false. He further submits that the deceased was the wife of the petitionerwho committed suicide on 24.10.2014. He further submits that due tomisunderstanding between the two families, the aforesaid FIR has beenregistered and the petitioner-husband is in judicial custody since 24.10.2014.

He further submits that all the material witnesses have been examined by theprosecution. He further submits that there is no emerging factor coming onrecord as an evidence to connect the commission of offence by the petitionerexcept the clause of presumption. He has submitted that the statement ofPW-1 Sh.Ved Prakash, who is father of the deceased is not reliable as duringhis cross-examination he deposed that his daughter i.e. deceased had nevertold him about any of the incidents or acts of cruelty faced by her at herhusband’s house. He has further submitted that PW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted that in the evening of festival of Diwali hisdeceased daughter had called him and was sounding happy. He has furthersubmitted that PW-2 Sh. Sudhir Kumar who is the brother of the deceasedalso deposed in his cross-examination that the deceased never told himanything directly about any of the torture incidents. He has submitted thatPW-4 Sh.Chakardhar Prusty has not deposed anything qua against thepresent petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that theremaining witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution are formalin nature submits that the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and thecontinued incarceration of the petitioner will not serve any purpose and praysthat the petitioner be released on regular bail.

On the other hand, learned APP for the State has vehemently opposedthe bail application and has submitted that the allegations levelled againstthe petitioner are very serious in nature. She has further submitted that thedeceased died at her matrimonial house within one year of marriage. She hasfurther submitted that the merit of the case/evidence adduced should notbeen seen at this stage as it may prejudice the outcome of the final judgment.

At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that theremaining witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution are formalin nature. He further submits that he shall withdraw the present bailapplication and the Tiral Court be directed to proceed with the matterexpeditiously.

In view of the statement made by counsel for the petitioner, thepresent bail application is dismissed as withdrawn with direction to theCourt below to proceed with the matter expeditiously, if possible within 2months, in accordance with law.

The present bail application is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of this order be given dasti.

FEBRUARY 28, 2017/radhika

I.S.MEHTA, J