Tarun Kumar Arora vs State

Pratibha Rani, J.—By this application moved u/s 439, Cr.P.C., the applicant/petitioner Tarun Kumar Arora seeks grant of regular bail in

case FIR No. 59/2012, under Sections 498A/304B/34, IPC, P.S. Rani Bagh, Delhi. Notice of the application was issued vide order dated

16.7.2012 and State was directed to file status report. In terms of the said direction status report has been filed by the State, as per which three

years old child of the deceased and the petitioner is living with her paternal grandparents. It is also stated that charge-sheet has been filed in the

Court on 16.5.2012.

On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that from the case of prosecution it is clear that earlier deceased Vividha got engaged to the

petitioner on 24.6.2007. After the engagement, due to alleged misbehaviour by the petitioner i.e. making telephone calls in the mid-night under the

influence of liquor hurling abuses, the complainant advised her daughter not to continue with the relationship with the petitioner. Ultimately, by a

written agreement the alliance was put to an end by the parties. However, despite that on 25.4.2008 the petitioner and Vividha got married in Arya

Samaj Mandir. After the marriage for about 4-5 months, her daughter used to talk to her at regular interval of 10-15 days and complain about the

beatings being given to her by the petitioner who was a womanizer.

On the first birthday of the child of the petitioner and the deceased, the complainant sent her son and younger daughter, who were given

beatings by the petitioner and turned them out. Then on the engagement of her younger daughter she visited the matrimonial home of her daughter

where the petitioner and his father demanded Rs. 25 lacs as dowry as a condition for attending the engagement ceremony function of her younger

daughter, but on not receiving Rs. 25 lacs as demanded, neither they attended the function of the engagement ceremony of her younger daughter

nor allowed her daughter Vividha to attend the function.

On 19.2.2012 at about 6 p.m., the complainant received information from the petitioner about the suicide being committed by her daughter and

prior to that he also informed her nephew Varun about some physical assault (Maarpeet) and that she had committed suicide. She suspected the

petitioner and his family for the unnatural death of her daughter and requested for necessary action against them.

On the statement made by the complainant i.e., mother of the deceased, a case FIR No. 59/2012, under Sections 498A/304B/34, IPC, P.S.

Rani Bagh, Delhi was registered against the petitioner and his father. Father of the petitioner was, however, enlarged on bail by the Court of

Sessions vide order dated 16.3.2012.

Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is a case where despite the engagement being broken

by the families, the deceased eloped with the petitioner and married with him in a Arya Samaj Mandir. He further submitted that it was a dowryless

marriage and the deceased was not on visiting terms with her parents after marrying the petitioner against their wishes. He further submitted that

three statements have been made by the complainant at different times with lot of improvements, as can be seen from the charge-sheet and till the

death of the deceased there was no complaint either by the deceased or by her family regarding any cruelty being committed on the deceased or

dowry demand being made by the petitioner or his family members. It has been further submitted that when investigation is already complete, there

cannot be any apprehension of influencing the witnesses who are none else but close family members of the deceased. It is further submitted that

whether the case falls u/s 304B, IPC or not shall be considered by the Court at the appropriate stage of framing of charge, but when investigation

is complete, there is no chance of the petitioner fleeing from justice. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

On behalf of the State, prayer for grant of bail has been strongly opposed. Referring to the statements made by the mother of the deceased and

other family members of the deceased, it has been submitted that the deceased was not allowed to visit her parents which in itself is an act of

cruelty and when family of the deceased wanted to renew the ties by visiting on the first birthday of child to their daughter, they both were given

beatings by the petitioner and turned out of the house. When the complainant herself visited to invite her daughter and her in-laws for the

engagement ceremony of her younger daughter, at that time dowry demand of Rs. 25 lacs was made from her as a condition for attending the

function which was ultimately not attended by them and soon thereafter the deceased committed suicide. Learned APP further submitted that since

unnatural death of a young girl aged about 25 years has taken place within 7 years of her marriage, prayer for grant of bail may be rejected.

I have heard rival contentions of the parties and gone through the record.

At the time of considering the application for grant of bail, the Court has to take into account the nature and gravity of the offence, severity and

punishment. The Court has also to look into the aspect as to whether the accused has roots in the society or there is a chance of his/her fleeing

from justice, if released on bail. Not only that, the Court has also to keep in mind as to whether there is any reasonable apprehension of the

witnesses being influenced or evidence being tampered with or the course of justice being thwarted, if bail is granted to the accused.

In the instant case, even as per the prosecution initially the parents of the petitioner and deceased agreed for the matrimonial alliance which also

resulted into engagement ceremony on 24.6.2007 and later on, under some written agreement the proposed matrimonial alliance was cancelled.

However, that did not deter the petitioner and the deceased in entering into matrimonial alliance against the wishes of their respective parents. The

date of engagement as per FIR is 24.6.2007, the date of breaking the engagement is not mentioned in the FIR. However, the petitioner and the

deceased got married on 25.4.2008 at Arya Samaj Mandir and thereafter as per FIR the deceased used to talk to her mother once in 10-15 days

informing about the cruelty being meted out to her by the petitioner. The date of death in this case is 19.2.2012 i.e. after about a period of four

years from the date of run-away marriage. There is no allegation in the complaint of any dowry demand being made by the petitioner till the

complainant visited their house to invite them for the engagement ceremony of her younger daughter. There is also no complaint made to the police

or any other authority when the complainant, who is the mother of the deceased, was regularly informed by her daughter about the cruel treatment

meted out to her at the hands of the petitioner. There is also no police report when the son and younger daughter of the complainant allegedly

visited the house of the deceased on the first birthday of their child and given beatings.

These circumstances indicate that the deceased married the petitioner against the wishes of her parents and thereafter she was not having any

social contact with her family. Even otherwise, in such run-away marriages, generally dowry is not an issue. In the status report filed by the State

today in Court, the date of engagement of Ashna, younger sister of the deceased has been given as 1.10.2011 and date of death of the deceased is

19.2.2012 and in between there is no complaint by family of the deceased about dowry demand of Rs. 25 lacs being made by the petitioner or his

family.

The petitioner''s three years'' old daughter is residing with her grandparents. The investigation is already complete and charge-sheet has been

filed in the concerned Court. No doubt, a young life has been lost and the deceased committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage with the

petitioner, but in the light of the circumstances referred to above, I find that there is no apprehension of the petitioner fleeing from justice and at the

same time witnesses being close family members of the deceased, there is hardly any possibility of tampering with the evidence or influencing the

witnesses. The possibility of tampering with the evidence is out of question as necessary evidence has already been collected and charge-sheet filed

against the petitioner before the concerned Court. There is no material to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will misuse the liberty granted

to him to subvert the justice.

In view of the aforesaid, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the

sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The petitioner is directed to surrender his

passport, if any, with the Trial Court and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

Any observations made hereinabove for the purpose of dealing with the contentions of Counsel for the petitioner on the present bail application

shall not have any effect on the decision of this case on merits at any stage of the trial. Order dasti.