Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 519 (DEL)

MUNISH SHARMA v. STATE

2012-02-09

V.K.SHALI

body2012
Judgment V.K. SHALI, J. 1. This is an application for grant of regular bail, in respect of FIR No.234/2011, under section 498-A/306 IPC, registered with PS Begum Pur, Delhi. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the record. The allegations against the petitioner are under section 498-A read with section 306 of the IPC. Although, the learned APP has taken the Court through the statement of the father of the deceased as well as statement of the mother of the deceased, recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C., wherein the allegations are made with regard to the demand of dowry and apparently subjecting the deceased to cruelty but that, at best, would constitute an offence under section 498-A IPC, which carries a maximum punishment of three years. 3. So far as the allegations of abetment to suicide are concerned, prima facie, in my view, there is no overt act by way of incitement, goading, instigation, prompting, which could be attributed to the petitioner, which have led the deceased to end her life. On the contrary, the deceased is purported to have left a note, wherein she has taken the full responsibility of ending her unfortunate life. The said note also shows that the deceased was a very sensitive person and had strained matrimonial relations. She was not able to get the job despite being well qualified. She referred to the allegations of the husband that her parents were interfering in the matrimonial affairs, while as she was of the opinion that they were helping her and her family. A reading of the note shows that she was unable to cope up with the stresses and strains of the matrimonial life and this resulted in her death. 4. In any case, all these questions, whether it was suicide simpliciter or whether there was any abetment for the same, are to be established during the course of trial so far as the guilt of the accused is concerned. The petitioner has been in custody since 19.09.2011. The charge sheet has already been filed. He has admittedly two children. By keeping the petitioner incarcerated, the children not only have lost the company of their dear mother but would also be deprived of the company of their father. In addition to this, there are no public witnesses. The petitioner has been in custody since 19.09.2011. The charge sheet has already been filed. He has admittedly two children. By keeping the petitioner incarcerated, the children not only have lost the company of their dear mother but would also be deprived of the company of their father. In addition to this, there are no public witnesses. The witnesses are the parents and the relations, if any, of the deceased, who cannot be said to be amenable to influence by the petitioner. There are no allegations that the petitioner would flee from the processes of law. 5. Keeping in view the above facts and totality of circumstances, I admit the petitioner to bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner shall not leave National Capital Region of Delhi or change his address without the permission of the Court. He shall make his mobile number available to the IO. He shall also not temper with the evidence. 6. Expression of any opinion hereinbefore shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the same is only tentative for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall not be cited by any of the parties to address arguments with regard to the framing of charges or any other matter during the trial or at the conclusion thereof. 7. DASTI.