BAIL APPLN./3809/2023 of DEEPMALA Vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI)

*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+BAIL APPLN. 3809/2023DEEPMALA.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Ajeet Shukla, Mr. S. Shukla andMs. Aarfa Khanam, Advocates.Ms. Aarfa Khanam, Advocates.versus

THE STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI).....Respondent

Through:Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP.Mr.SI.VivekNandan,P.S.Mansarovar Park.Mr.KanhaiyaSinghal(AmicusCuriae) with Mr. Abhishek Prakashand Mr. Binwant Singh, Advocates.Mr.SI.VivekNandan,P.S.Mansarovar Park.Mr.KanhaiyaSinghal(AmicusCuriae) with Mr. Abhishek Prakashand Mr. Binwant Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULAO R R

30.01.2025

1.The present application filed under Section 438 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973[1]seeks anticipatory bail in proceedings arisingfrom FIR No. 205/2023 registered under Section 312/315/317/120B of theIndian Penal Code, 1860[2]at P.S. Mansarovar Park.

2.In brief, the case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1.The present FIR was registered on complaint made by Mr. Rahul,who married Ms. Deepmala (the Applicant) in 2022. After the marriage, theApplicant conceived and as per the ultrasound report dated 3[rd]April, 2023

1 “Cr.P.C.”

2 “IPC”

conducted at Noida International Institute of Medical Sciences, the gestationperiod was 8 weeks and 4 days pregnant.

2.2.The Complainant asserted that on 09[th]June, 2023, the Applicant wentto her father’s house and on 17[th]June, 2023 during telephonicconversation, she disclosed that she had aborted the unborn child anddisposed the foetus with the help of her family members and also sent aphoto of the foetus. It was alleged that the Applicant along with her sisterMs. Shivani and her parents hatched conspiracy and killed the unbornchild.

2.3.During the course of investigation, notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.Cwas given to Jyoti Nursing Homes for CCTV footage and copy of the recordof patients maintained at the hospital, however the CCTV footage was notprovided but as per the list of patients dated 14[th]/15[th]June, 2023, theApplicant’s name was not mentioned.

2.4.Further, the Applicant disclosed that on 7[th]June, 2023 when she wentto her father’s house, her health deteriorated and for this purpose, she wentto the General Hospital and then GTB Hospital. However, MLC was notprepared at any hospital. With no option left, she aborted the baby at homein the presence of her mother and sister. Her sister clicked the photo andvideo of the foetus and thereafter, her parents disposed of the body of thefoetus in the Yamuna river.

2.5.The CDR of all accused persons were obtained which reveal that theApplicant was in conversation with the Complainant from 9[th]June, 2023 to17[th]June, 2023.

2.6.Additionally, efforts were made to recover the body of the foetus butthe identified area was not specific and therefore, no recovery was made.

2.7.The Applicant, along with her family members, approached the TrialCourt seeking anticipatory bail, however, the said request was dismissedthrough order dated 25[th]October, 2023. On 10[th]November, 2023, this Courtgranted interim protection to the Applicant against coercive action, subjectto their joining investigation as and when directed by the IO and co-operating therein.

3.In this background, Counsel for the Applicant advances the followingin support of the Applicant’s request for anticipatory bail:

3.1.The Applicant has been falsely implicated as the present FIR has beenregistered after delay of 22 days with the intent to harass the Applicant andher family.

3.2.The Applicant had love marriage with the Complainant against thewishes of her family and the Complainant was only seeking to take revengeby filing false and frivolous FIR. The Applicant was harassed andhumiliated by the Complainant and his family members. The Complainant,being intoxicated, would abuse and beat the Applicant and would not allowher to meet her family members.

3.3.When the Applicant conceived in April, 2023, the Complainantpressurised her to terminate the pregnancy. The Applicant started living in arented accommodation and the Complainant would visit her once in afortnight. On 07[th]June, 2023, the Complainant and his family membersabused the Applicant and physically kicked her in the stomach and forcedher against the wall, coercing her to consume some medicine. Theyrepeatedly made complaints that she was not fulfilling their dowry demands.The Applicant saved herself and came to her parental house but her healthhad deteriorated considerably. Due to the physical and mental trauma caused

by the Applicant’s in-laws, it resulted in the abortion of the child.

3.4.Consequently, the Applicant filed complaint through DD No. 59Adated 26[th]June, 2023 at P.S. Mansarovar Park, but no action was taken.

3.5.The Applicant has joined investigation and have been co-operatingand undertakes that she will continue to do so, as and when called by theInvestigating Officer. Applicant has clean antecedents and has not misusedthe interim protection granted by this Court on 10[th]November, 2023.

4.On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State,vehemently opposes the request for anticipatory bail. He states that at thesuspected spot, excavation was carried out on 02[nd]May, 2024 in thepresence of the Executive Magistrate, Civil Lines, to find the remains of thefoetus but nothing was found. The whole process was photographed andvideographed by private photographer. Thereafter, on 13[th]May, 2024,medical examination of the Applicant was conducted to obtain an opinion asto whether she could deliver 4 to 5 months old foetus at home withoutmedication and response has been received. On 17[th]May, 2024, voicesamples of the Complainant and the Applicant were recorded in FSL, Rohiniin the presence of two independent witnesses. The said samples have beendeposited with FSL Rohini to match them with the call recordings providedby the Complainant.

5.The Court has considered the facts and the submissions advanced. It iswell established through catena of judgments by the Supreme Court that theobject of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The primary aimsought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accused

person at the trial.[3]

6.In the present case, the Complainant in the present case is the husbandof the Applicant. Applicant’s father, mother and sister have been grantedanticipatory bail by this Court by order dated 22[nd]May, 2024. Notably, theApplicant has not misused the interim protection granted to the Applicantand has co-operated in the investigation. Moreover, it is not the case of theprosecution that Applicant has made any attempt to tamper with evidence orinfluence witnesses. Further, the question of whether the abortion resultedon account of physical or mental trauma or was part of conspiracy asalleged by the Complainant, is matter to be determined in the proceedingsbefore the Trial Court. The opinion on the legal question that whether theabortion can be carried out at home without any medication, as per the MLCannexed with the status report, is inconclusive.7.In view of the foregoing, the application is, therefore, allowed. TheApplicant, in the event of arrest, is directed to be released on bail onfurnishing bail bond for sum of INR 50,000/- with one surety of the likeamount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO, on the followingconditions:

a.The Applicant shall join and cooperate with the investigation as andwhen directed by the IO;

b.The Applicant shall not leave the boundaries of Delhi NCR withoutinforming the IO/ SHO concerned;

c.The Applicant shall not contact the witnesses or tamper with theevidence in any manner;

3 See also: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau ofInvestigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

d.The Applicant shall give her mobile number to the concerned IO/SHOand shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times;

8.In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry / complaint lodgedagainst the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal byfiling an application seeking cancellation of bail.

9.It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are forthe purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influencethe outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion onthe merits of the case.

10.The application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.

JANUARY 30, 2025as

SANJEEV NARULA, J