BHURI SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
STATE, NCT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) BY this common order, I shall dispose of two applications for granting of anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr. P. C. by the petitioners, since these arise out of common fir registered in this case.
(2.) THE present case has been registered on the statement of Smt. Phoolwati, mother of deceased Seema, recorded by the SDM. Smt. Phoolwati in her statement has stated that her daughter Seema was married to ram Kumar on 8th July, 2003. At that time, they had spent beyond their capacity as per their demands. The family members of Ram Kumar took care of her for a while, but later on they started harassing and asking her daughter to bring money from her house as they were unable to meet the expenses of their household. On the occasion of last Raksha Bandhan, they gave an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to their daughter as per demand of their in laws but after six months, again she was sent back to her parental house after giving beating and was asked to bring money. Again they gave a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to their daughter. Thereafter, their son-in-law came and asked for more money and they gave Rs. 1,000/-to him. Thereafter, her in laws asked her to bring her share from her parental property otherwise she would be killed. Lastly, on 29th September, 2007, the father-in-law of the deceased, Ram Kumar, Ram Nath, Shri niwas and Lokesh killed her daughter and they did not even deem it proper to inform her about death and the information of the death of their daughter was given by the neighbours. On the basis of the above statement, the present case has been registered against the present petitioners.
(3.) IT has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioners Bhuri Singh is the father-in-law while, other three petitioners are (jeth) brother-in-law, of the deceased Seema. The father-in-law is residing in Rajasthan whereas, all the other three petitioners have been living separately only, general and vague allegations have been made against all the in laws of the family of the deceased and there are no specific allegations of demand of dowry or torture against the petitioners. Under these circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail and in support of his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner has cited various judgments of this Court as well as those Of the Apex court viz. Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2000 IV AD (S. C.) 478 = AIR 2000 SC 2324, Mahender Rani Johar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 117 (2005) DLT 619, Satvir Singh And Ors. Vs. State of punjab and Anr. , 2002 SCC (Cri) 48, inderjit Kaur Vs. The State, 2005 IV AD (Delhi) 532, Ved Prakash Yadavvs. State 2005 VIII AD (D. H. C.) 43 = 124 (2005)DLT 387 and Promila Malhotra Vs. State 1995 (2) C. C. Cases 257 (HC),.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.