Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
Judgement delivered on: 23 November, 2015
+ BAIL APPLN. 2083/2015 & Crl. M. (Bail) No.7849/2015
ASHA RANI ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Himanshu Upadhyay,
Adv.
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,
APP for the State with SI
Govind Singh, P.S. Uttam
Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. By way of present petition under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr P C’) petitioner
seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.1164/2015 registered at police
station Uttam Nagar, Delhi for the offences punishable under Section
307/498A/ 34 of the IPC.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that
on 04.09.2015 complainant, who is daughter in law of petitioner started
destroying the household articles like TV and AC in house bearing
No.A-18, Bhagwati Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and due to which
petitioner and her elder son Neeraj and her wife entered into the house
Bail Appln No.2083/2015 Page 1 of 4
of her younger son Pankaj and asked her not to destroy the household
articles, but complainant did not stop. Accordingly, the petitioner made
a call at 100 number for assistance. The son of petitioner had recorded
all incident from mobile phone. Copy of the same is annexed to
petition as P-3.
3. It is also submitted that incident allegedly occurred after 11.00
hours night whereas DD No.112A recorded at police station at about
11.30PM, thus, the said incident is after 11 O’clock and by that time,
the petitioner had left the house, thus, the story of the complainant of
administering alleged substance is false. The petitioner has also filed
two CDs as annexure P3 & P4 and requested the Court to see their
contents prior to passing the order.
4. Vide order dated 01.10.2015, the State was directed to file the
status report on the CDs handed over by counsel of the petitioner to the
Investigating Officer of the case. Accordingly, as per the status report
the husband of complainant is seen recording the movements of her
wife who is going outside the house again and again and sitting outside
the main get of the house and also sat on the stairs of neighbour and
talking to her sister on phone from outside the house. Therefore, the
said CD has given no clue about the submission of petitioner.
5. For my satisfaction, the said CDs were played on the desktop
installed in the Court wherein it is seen that petitioner and her two sons
and their wives including complainant were present in the house. It is
also seen that the complainant is moving here and there. From her
Bail Appln No.2083/2015 Page 2 of 4
side, there is noise of breaking some glass type items. This had
happened upto late night and thereafter, the petitioner called the police
regarding breaking of household articles by complainant.
6. While summing up, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
petitioner being the aged lady had no involvement in the alleged
offence, and prayed that present petition may be allowed.
7. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State while opposing
the instant petition submitted that the allegations against petitioner who
is mother in law of complainant are that on 04.09.2015 at about 11.00
hours in the night the complainant was present in her house and
petitioner asked her son/ husband of complainant that she
(complainant) is disturbing them by calling police again and again,
why they should not kill her. Accordingly, the petitioner had caught
hold her both hands and husband of complainant put her down and
closed the nose and mouth with the hand and poured poison through
her mouth.
8. Whereas, the contents of MLC of victim whereon doctor has
observed that complainant was injected with unknown poison and
question marked the same to be phosphorus substance. There is no
dispute that PCR van shifted the victim to hospital, however, the
contents of MLC are not indicative whether the alleged poisonous
substance was administered to her by her husband with the assistance
and instigation of petitioner herein or same is allegedly taken by the
victim herself. The FSL report has not been received so far. The
Bail Appln No.2083/2015 Page 3 of 4
petitioner is a lady aged about 65 years. Therefore, without
commenting upon the merits of the case, I am of the considered
opinion that petitioner be released on bail in the event of her arrest.
9. Accordingly, in view of above recorded facts, the Investigating
Officer/SHO is directed to release the petitioner in the event of her
arrest, on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with
one surety in the like amount to their satisfaction. It is also directed
that in case of any change of address of petitioner or surety, the same
shall be communicated to learned Trial Court as well as Investigating
Officer/SHO concerned.
10. In above terms, instant petition is allowed and disposed of.
Crl. M.(Bail) No.7849/2015
Dismissed as infructuous.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
November 23, 2015
M
Bail Appln No.2083/2015 Page 4 of 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
Judgement delivered on: 23 November, 2015
+ BAIL APPLN. 2083/2015 & Crl. M. (Bail) No.7849/2015
ASHA RANI ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Himanshu Upadhyay,
Adv.
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,
APP for the State with SI
Govind Singh, P.S. Uttam
Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. By way of present petition under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr P C’) petitioner
seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.1164/2015 registered at police
station Uttam Nagar, Delhi for the offences punishable under Section
307/498A/ 34 of the IPC.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that
on 04.09.2015 complainant, who is daughter in law of petitioner started
destroying the household articles like TV and AC in house bearing
No.A-18, Bhagwati Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and due to which
petitioner and her elder son Neeraj and her wife entered into the house
Bail Appln No.2083/2015 Page 1 of 4
of her younger son Pankaj and asked her not to destroy the household
articles, but complainant did not stop. Accordingly, the petitioner made
a call at 100 number for assistance. The son of petitioner had recorded
all incident from mobile phone. Copy of the same is annexed to
petition as P-3.
3. It is also submitted that incident allegedly occurred after 11.00
hours night whereas DD No.112A recorded at police station at about
11.30PM, thus, the said incident is after 11 O’clock and by that time,
the petitioner had left the house, thus, the story of the complainant of
administering alleged substance is false. The petitioner has also filed
two CDs as annexure P3 & P4 and requested the Court to see their
contents prior to passing the order.
4. Vide order dated 01.10.2015, the State was directed to file the
status report on the CDs handed over by counsel of the petitioner to the
Investigating Officer of the case. Accordingly, as per the status report
the husband of complainant is seen recording the movements of her
wife who is going outside the house again and again and sitting outside
the main get of the house and also sat on the stairs of neighbour and
talking to her sister on phone from outside the house. Therefore, the
said CD has given no clue about the submission of petitioner.
5. For my satisfaction, the said CDs were played on the desktop
installed in the Court wherein it is seen that petitioner and her two sons
and their wives including complainant were present in the house. It is
also seen that the complainant is moving here and there. From her
Bail Appln No.2083/2015 Page 2 of 4
side, there is noise of breaking some glass type items. This had
happened upto late night and thereafter, the petitioner called the police
regarding breaking of household articles by complainant.
6. While summing up, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
petitioner being the aged lady had no involvement in the alleged
offence, and prayed that present petition may be allowed.
7. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State while opposing
the instant petition submitted that the allegations against petitioner who
is mother in law of complainant are that on 04.09.2015 at about 11.00
hours in the night the complainant was present in her house and
petitioner asked her son/ husband of complainant that she
(complainant) is disturbing them by calling police again and again,
why they should not kill her. Accordingly, the petitioner had caught
hold her both hands and husband of complainant put her down and
closed the nose and mouth with the hand and poured poison through
her mouth.
8. Whereas, the contents of MLC of victim whereon doctor has
observed that complainant was injected with unknown poison and
question marked the same to be phosphorus substance. There is no
dispute that PCR van shifted the victim to hospital, however, the
contents of MLC are not indicative whether the alleged poisonous
substance was administered to her by her husband with the assistance
and instigation of petitioner herein or same is allegedly taken by the
victim herself. The FSL report has not been received so far. The
Bail Appln No.2083/2015 Page 3 of 4
petitioner is a lady aged about 65 years. Therefore, without
commenting upon the merits of the case, I am of the considered
opinion that petitioner be released on bail in the event of her arrest.
9. Accordingly, in view of above recorded facts, the Investigating
Officer/SHO is directed to release the petitioner in the event of her
arrest, on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with
one surety in the like amount to their satisfaction. It is also directed
that in case of any change of address of petitioner or surety, the same
shall be communicated to learned Trial Court as well as Investigating
Officer/SHO concerned.
10. In above terms, instant petition is allowed and disposed of.
Crl. M.(Bail) No.7849/2015
Dismissed as infructuous.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
November 23, 2015
M
Bail Appln No.2083/2015 Page 4 of 4