Malkhan Singh vs State (NCT of Delhi)

V.K. Shali, J.—This is a bail application on behalf of Malkhan Singh u/s 439 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No.

472/2008 registered at P.S. Mangol Puri wherein an offence under Sections 498 A/304B/ 34, IPC has been registered.

Briefly stated the prosecution allegations are that one Ramcharan had solemnized the marriage of his daughter Kunti on 06.05.2007 with one

Dhirender @ Billu son of Malkhan Singh r/o.M-767, Mangol Puri, Delhi. It is alleged by him that he gave dowry articles more than his capacity at

the time of marriage. However, immediately after the marriage, Kunti, his daughter was subjected to demand of dowry and consequent harassment

and cruelty by her husband and other family members including Malkhan Singh also.

Malkhan Singh is the father in law of the deceased ''Kunti'' It is alleged that on one particular occasion, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was also given in

cash by the complainant to his son-in-law in order to ensure that his daughter lives peacefully.

On 20.09.2009, Ram Charan was informed that his daughter was not well and on receiving this news, he reached Sanjay Gartdhi Hospital

where he found his daughter dead. Immediately on 22.09.2008, a complaint was lodged on the. basis of which the present FIR was registered. In

the said complaint, he has attributed that the following persons namely Malkhan Singh (father-in-law), Satbir (Jeth), Dhirender @ Billu (husband),

Happu and Ronu (Dever) of the deceased have killed Kunti.

It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 06.11.2008. He is stated to be an

employee of FCI. On merits, it was stated that there is no specific averment qua the present petitioner with regard to subjecting the deceased to

demand of dowry and the consequent cruelty. The general and vague allegations have been made in the complaint of Ramcharan. Because of these

reasons, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail.

The learned APP for the State has refuted the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is stated that the charge sheet has

already been filed and the matter is listed for framing of charge on 25.09.2009. It has been further stated that the statements no doubt are general

in nature but they do not exonerate the petitioner from the allegations of demand of dowry and the consequent death of Kunti and therefore, since

this is a very serious kind of offence, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

I have carefully considered the respective submissions. I am of the view that as the petitioner has already been in custody for almost ten months

and the fact that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner to the effect that he had made any demand to the deceased or to the father of

the deceased during the marriage or even thereafter, therefore, the petitioner could not be prima facie said to be guilty of committing the offence of

Sections 498A or 304B except to the extent as is permissible by way of a presumption under the Evidence Act. The trial is also likely to take

some time, therefore, I feel that this is a fit case where the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

The petitioner is accordingly directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties to the

satisfaction of the trial Judge. The petitioner will not try to influence the witnesses or try to threaten the complainant or his other family members or

cause any impediment in the conduct of the fair trial. He shall not leave the NCT of Delhi and surrender his passport if he has any. In case of

breach of any of these conditions, the prosecution shall be free to take appropriate measures for cancellation of his bail.

With these directions, the application stands disposed of.

Any expression made hereinbefore shall not be treated as an expression on merits of the case.

Trial Court record be sent back.

Dasti.