Home > Bail Judgement > Bail granted by Hon’ble Dhingra in 498A/302 case

Bail granted by Hon’ble Dhingra in 498A/302 case

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: 31st January, 2011

Date of Order: 11th February, 2011

+ Bail Application No. 1646/2010

% 11.02.2011 Harinder Singh @ Tinu … Petitioner Through: Ms. Sunita Kapil, Advocate with

Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate

Versus

The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) … Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State with

Mr. G.S.Sharma, SI PS Rajinder Singh

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

This application for bail has been made on behalf of Harinder @ Tinu who is brother of husband of deceased and has been booked under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 and Section 498A IPC on the basis of statement made by the injured, who died later on, to SDM. Relevant portion of statement of injured/deceased is reproduced hereunder: “I was married to Navinder Singh in 1999. I have a son 08 years old, whose name is Harshman Singh. On ground floor my father-in-law, mother-in-law and devar (brother-in-law) lived while we lived on first floor, second floor was lying vacant and on third floor my jeth (brother-in-law) and jethani (sister-in- law) were living. My father-in-law and mother-in-law used to tell me that I Bail Application No.1646/2010 Page 1 of 4 should go away from home. My husband used to beat me. My husband was not harassing me for dowry. Sometimes he used to talk to parents for share in the property. At 11-11.30 pm. my father-in-law Iqbal put me on fire and my devar Harender Singh poured kerosene oil on me. My husband tried to save me by putting a bed-sheet on me. My son Harshman Singh and my husband Navinder Singh brought me to Ganga Ram Hospital.”

2. It is submitted by Counsel for the petitioner that Investigating Agency deliberately did not produce certain vital documents before the trial Court at the time of submitting charge-sheet. These vital documents include the treatment record of injured/deceased at Ganga Ram Hospital and the history given by her to the doctor at Safdarjung Hospital when she was shifted from Ganga Ram Hospital to Safdarjung Hospital. The applicant procured these documents under “Right to Information Act” and produced before the trial Court for Investigating Agency to admit the documents. These documents were not denied by the Investigating Agency. It is submitted by Counsel for the applicant that the real dispute was over division of proceeds of a shop sold by the father and deceased was angry as to why share out of proceeds was not given to her husband also and in fit of anger she burnt herself at first floor of her house where she was living separately with her husband and son. There was no issue of dowry at all. The parties were having separate business. There is no allegation of any quarrel which would have resulted into a kind of act as alleged against the father-in-law and brother-in-law. He submitted that father-in-law and brother-in-law were deliberately involved by the deceased by making the statement as father-in- law had not given share in the proceeds of shop sold by him, to the husband Bail Application No.1646/2010 Page 2 of 4 of the deceased and the share was given to brother-in-law and that is the reason she exonerated her husband.

3. The statement given by the deceased to SDM looks a little strange. She stated that she was put on fire by her father-in-law and brother- in-law and her husband put bed-sheet to extinguish the fire. Her son was also living in the same house that shows that the fire was put in presence of son and her husband and none of them made an attempt to prevent father-in-law or brother-in-law of the deceased from committing the act. If she was true and fire was put in presence of her son and her husband an attempt would have been made by husband to prevent the incident and some kerosene oil would have fallen on him. Her statement shows dowry was not an issue. The deceased was taken to Ganga Ram Hospital immediately by her husband and son. It is specifically recorded by doctors at Ganga Ram Hospital that she was conscious, oriented, pulse rate was 102/minute. She gave history to doctor at Safdarjung Hospital. The history of the patient recorded on 24th August, 2008 at Safdarjung Hospital shows that she had put herself on fire. In Safdarjung Hospital also it is recorded that patient was conscious and oriented.

4. PW-1 is the son of the deceased and his testimony has already been recorded. He has testified before the trial Court that on the night intervening 23rd/24th August, 2008, he along with his father had gone to the shop of his father’s friend in Metro, at District Center, Janakpuri, where he had a burger from McDonald and other eatables. They came back to their house at 11/11.30 p.m. and the door of the house was opened by his mother. His mother had dinner with dal brought by them. He went to bed at about 12 night Bail Application No.1646/2010 Page 3 of 4 with his father and were watching TV in the bed room. His mother was consuming some liquid while sitting on the bed side. She then went out of the room. After a short while they felt burning smell and they both went out of the room. His mother went inside kitchen and when she came out her shirt was on fire. His father took a bed sheet to put out the fire and asked her to lie down on the floor. Thereafter his mother did lie down and his father put a mattress on her and thereafter the fire was put off. His mother then complained of irritation by burning and she put water on her by a pipe. His father went out immediately to take out car. In the meantime, his mother was taking rounds in the drawing room and was also saying “God save me I have committed a mistake”.

5. The mother of the deceased had also deposed in the Court and her examination and cross examination would show that the temperament of the deceased was quite volatile. There was a dispute going on in the family about distribution of money received from sale of shop.

6. Considering these facts, I consider that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his executing personal bond to the tune of ` 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned. Dasti.

February 11, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. vn

Advertisements
Categories: Bail Judgement
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: