Full Judgment Text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Bail Application No.3701/2006
# Mohan Singh .......Petitioner
VERSUS
$ State .......Respondent
Bail Application No.1191/2007
# Harinder Singh .......Petitioner
VERSUS
$ State .......Respondent
^ through: Mr.K.K.Sareen with Mr.Ravi Mehta
for the petitioner
Mr. Anil Soni for the State
Mr.S.C.Bhuttan with Mr.Parvesh Bhuttal
for the complainant
% ATE OF DECISION: D 09-08-2007
CORAM:
* Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
FIR.No.641/2006
U/S 304B/498A/34 IPC
P.S. Tilak Marg
1. Petitioners, father and son have approached this
court for relief. Whereas the son, Harinder Singh seeks bail,
father seeks anticipatory bail.
2. Harinder Singh is in judicial custody since 18.9.2006.
3. It is not in dispute that a challan has been presented
and a charge has been framed against the petitioners under
Section 498A/306 IPC. It is also not in dispute that pertaining to
the order framing charge, a revision petition is pending in this
court where the prayer made is that a charge needs to be framed
under Section 304B IPC.
4. Thus, position as of today would be that the
petitioners would be entitled to a consideration of the matter as if
they are charged under Section 498A/306 IPC.
5. Conscious of the fact that considering the menace of
dowry a charge even under Section 306 IPC is a serious offence, I
have proceed to embark the journey with extra care and caution.
6. Gurpreet Kaur was married to Harinder Singh on
3.10.2003. A daughter was born to the couple. Unfortunately,
Gurpreet Kaur committed suicide on 25.8.2006. Her aggrieved
father made a complaint that the in-laws of her daughter were
harassing her for dowry. He stated that on the pretext that his
daughter was ill lot of money was being spent on her treatment,
money was being demanded from him by the in-laws of her
daughter and that in the month of September,2004 he had given
Rs.40,000/- in cash.
7. Petitioners have shown to me the voluminous medical
record pertaining to the medical treatment of the deceased.
8. The same shows that right through her married life, the
deceased was under constant medical treatment. She had a
kidney problem. Diagnostic report of the Department of Nuclear
Medicine of Saral Diagnostic (at page 10 of Bail Application
No.3701/06) records a disfunctional right kidney. The problem
diagnosed is recorded as under :
“The right kidney is enlarged, present in its
normal location in the lumbar region. Arterial
perfusion to this kidney is reduced and delayed
in time following tracer appearance in the
abdominal aorta. Initial Te-99m DTPA uptake is
significantly reduced with presence of cortical
thinning. Serial images and region of interest
generated time activity curves reveal gradual
tracer accumulation in the dilated calyceal
system with complete tracer fili-in seen on the
delayed 1.5 hr image. Tracer hold up is noted in
the upper pole of this kidney, which does not
clear on delayed images and on forced diuresis
using intravenous frusemide. Tracer hold up in
the upper pole of this kidney clears promptly on
unclaiming the nephrostomy tube, with flow of
radiolabelled urine seen through the
nephrostomy tube.
x x x x x x
Enlarged right kidney with severe
hydronephrotic changes and associated
impairment of glomerular function.
Tracer hold up is noted at upper pole of right
kidney which clears promptly through the
nephrostomy tube on forced diursis.”
9. The medical record shows that the deceased was under
medical treatment and medication pertaining to renal problem
on the day she died. Viscera report shows that the deceased had
taken crocin. The medical record shows that the deceased was
visiting various doctors of repute for treatment. The medical
record pertains to treatment undergone at All Institute of Medical
Sciences, Saat Manjila Shri Sanatan Dharam Charitable Hospital,
Tilak Nagar, Kartic Nursing Home & Urology Centre, as also
treatment by Dr.G.R.V.R.Reddy, Ex.Medical Officer of Dr.Ram
Manohar Lohia Hospital.
10. The two families come from a middle class background.
The possibility of both families being stressed due to high cost of
medical treatment cannot be ruled out. Even in the complaint
lodged with the police by the father of the deceased, he has
stated that the in-laws of his daughter demanded money from him
for the treatment of his daughter. Prima facie, the demand, if at
all made, would not be a dowry demand.
11. What shape would the trial ultimately take would
depend upon the evidence. But while considering whether the
husband should be admitted to bail and whether father-in-law
should be granted anticipatory bail, it becomes relevant to weigh
the probabilities of the evidence which would come on record viz-
a-viz the final shape of the adjudication which may take place.
For if, there is a probability that defence may succeed in
establishing that the deceased took her life as she was frustrated
due to her prolonged sickness, case would be made out to grant
the relief prayed for.
12. The allegations by the father of the deceased in the
complaint are suggestive of demand for money by the in-laws for
the medical treatment of the deceased. Prima facie it was not for
the personal benefit of the in-laws. Possibility of the deceased
ending her life out of frustration and to free her family from
economic bondage cannot be ignored at this stage.
13. Question of petitioners tampering with evidence does
not arise as the police has collected all evidence and the challan
has already been filed.
14. Witnesses of the prosecution the parents and the
family members of the unfortunate girl who has suffered an
untimely death. There is thus no possibility of the petitioners
influencing any witness.
15. Clarifying that if revision petition filed against the order
framing charge succeeds and it is held that case is made out to
frame a charge under Section 304 IPC, it would be open to the
State to file an appropriate application seeking modification or
cancellation of the instant order, the two petitions stand
disposed of with the following directions :-
a) Bail Application No.3701/2006 is disposed of extending
the interim protection of said petitioner by a further
period of 4 weeks. Since challan has already been
filed, said petitioner would seek a regular bail from the
learned Trial Judge who is directed not to require the
petitioner to formally surrender as a condition
precedent for deciding the application seeking regular
bail.
b) Petitioner of Bail Application No.1191/2007 is directed
to be admitted to bail by the learned Trial Judge on his
furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.20,000/- with
one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
learned Trial Judge in the above captioned FIR.
16. It is hoped and expected that pertaining to the
application seeking regular bail to be filed by Mohan Singh,
learned Trial Judge would keep in mind the present order and the
fact that the husband of the deceased has been directed to be
admitted on bail by and under the present order.
17. Copy of this order be supplied dasti to learned counsel
for the parties.
August 09, 2007 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
pu