BAIL APPLN./2002/2025 of MANOJ Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ BAIL APPLN. 2002/2025 MANOJ .....Petitioner MANOJ .....Petitioner

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Inderpal Khokhar and Ms. Sangeeta Kumari, Advs. Sangeeta Kumari, Advs.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJAO R R23.07.2025

1.This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 0486/2021, under Sections 498A/304-B/34 IPC registered at P.S.Bhalswa Dairy.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has no nexus with the commission of the alleged offence. At the time of commission of offence, he was on his duty at Pitampura and was not even present at the house. He further submits that all the material witnesses have already been examined. Co-accused with similar allegations has already been enlarged on bail. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 17.07.2021. The investigation is complete. Petitioner has deep roots in the society and therefore there is no chance of his absconding.

3.The bail application has been opposed by learned APP submitting that the victim was subjected to physical and mental harassment on account of demand of dowry. Petitioner was not maintaining conjugal relationship with the deceased and constantly demanding dowry. His mother who is the co-accused used to call the deceased “baanj” (barren) and taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry. He further submits that on 15.07.2021, the deceased had called her mother and reiterated the harassment and torture by the petitioners.

4.Learned APP further submits that presumption is operating against the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner has criminal antecedents inasmuch as he is involved in case FIR No. 486/2016 under Sections 328/376/506 IPC, and therefore, that being the case, he does not deserve the leniency of grant of bail.

5.Admittedly, the victim died within 1 ½ years of her marriage at her matrimonial home. Cause of death is ante mortem hanging. It is correct that the allegations qua the petitioner are grave and serious in nature but they need to be tested during the trial. Petitioner is stated to be in custody for the last about 4 years. Investigation is complete, petitioner is not required for investigation. All the material witnesses have since been examined. Since all the material witnesses have already been examined, there is no possibility of threatening or influencing the witnesses. Co-accused with almost similar allegations has since been enlarged on bail.

6.Hence keeping in view the aforesaid facts, and in particular the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody for the last more than 4 years, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial

court/Duty Magistrate subject to the condition that petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall not try to contact, threaten or intimidate the witnesses.

7.The bail application accordingly stands disposed of.

8.Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. Master.

JULY 23, 2025/ib/ak

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J