Tag: #FirstInformationReport

–Report by Radhika Mitta

This is a case summary of an application for anticipatory bail in FIR No. 512/2022 under Sections 307/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), registered at PS Ranhola, New Delhi.

FACTS:

The incident involved a lady who fell from the roof of her matrimonial house and sustained grievous injuries. She alleged that she was taunted, beaten, and threatened for dowry and was restrained from communicating or meeting with her parents and husband. The victim accused the present applicant, Ms. Mamta (mother-in-law), along with other accused persons of dragging her to the terrace and pushing her from there. During the course of the investigation, the statement of an eyewitness was recorded, who initially stated that the complainant herself jumped from the roof but later retracted her statement. The complainant admitted to communicating with her mother, brother, and husband through the phone of the present applicant’s son and his wife. The complainant’s father and brother-in-law also visited her matrimonial house and witnessed her being abused and misbehaved with at the hands of the present applicant and his family. The present applicant was not found at her expected address during the investigation as she was undergoing treatment at a hospital. A chargesheet was filed, and the anticipatory bail application of the present applicant was dismissed. A non-bailable warrant was issued against the present applicant by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:

The contentions of the plaintiff/complainant are not explicitly stated in the given case summary. However, it can be inferred that the complainant had filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the applicant (present respondent) and had made serious allegations against her, including allegations of cruelty and harassment at her matrimonial home.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The learned counsel for the applicant (present respondent) argued that the allegations made in the FIR were false and that no specific allegations had been made against the applicant. The counsel also submitted that the complainant had jumped from the terrace of her matrimonial home and that an eyewitness had corroborated this fact. The counsel further urged that the applicant was an old woman with health issues and required frequent medical attention. The defence counsel argued that no material had been placed on record to substantiate the prosecution’s claim that the applicant posed a threat to the complainant or could tamper with evidence.

JUDGEMENT:

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of her arrest in connection with the present FIR, the applicant is directed to be released forthwith, upon her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer. In case it is established that the applicant tried to tamper with the evidence, the bail granted to the applicant shall stand cancelled forthwith.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3TnmMSG

–Report by Anjali Pandey

Without commenting further on the merits of the case, keeping the facts and circumstances in mind and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time, I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for a grant of regular bail. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/ complaint lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by way of seeking cancellation of bail. It is also made clear that the observations made in the present case are only to consider the bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

FACTS:

The FIR was registered on a complaint made by the father of the deceased, Shri Sarvesh Kumar, alleging that the son of the applicant, Sonu was married to the deceased, Neha, who committed suicide on 19.09.2021, due to harassment and torture, being caused by her husband, Sonu, and his family members, including the applicant, Ram Ashre. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the accused, husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased who has been specifically named by the complainant are in judicial custody. He submits that no role has been alleged to the applicant and a vague allegation has been made that the entire family of the husband was responsible for the dowry death.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the accused, husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased who has been specifically named by the complainant are in judicial custody. He submits that no role has been alleged to the applicant and a vague allegation has been made that the entire family of the husband was responsible for the dowry death.

He further submits that the learned Trial Court, by order dated 12.11.2021, has already granted pre-arrest bail to the brother-in-law of the deceased, specifically noting that the prime witness, Anisha, whose statement has been heavily relied upon by the prosecution, had only named the husband, Sonu, the mother-in-law, Maya Devi, and she had also specifically said in the statement that the deceased did not take anyone else’s name.

JUDGMENT:

Without commenting further on the merits of the case, keeping the facts and circumstances in mind and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time, I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for a grant of regular bail.

The applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- (rupees Fifty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court / Duty Metropolitan Magistrate on the following conditions:a) He shall under no circumstance leave Delhi without informing the concerned IO / SHO.b) He shall not take adjournment and attend the Trial Court proceedings on every date.c) He shall join and cooperate in further investigation.d) The applicant shall not, in any manner, try to contact any of the witnesses.e) He shall provide his mobile number to the investigating officer (IO) concerned/SHO concerned at the time of release which shall be kept in always working conditions.

In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/ complaint lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by way of seeking cancellation of bail.