← Library
High Court of DelhiBAIL APPLN./1736/2015

Simran v. State

2016-01-06Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

$~1 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 1736/2015 SIMRAN ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Rakesh Chahar, Adv.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the State SI Pravesh Kaushik, PS Rajouri Garden Mr. Pawan K. Bahl & Mr. Mohan S., Advs. for the complainant

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 06.01.2016 The petitioner is the unmarried sister-in-law of the deceased. Though the allegation in the FIR is that during the stay of the deceased in her matrimonial home, she was harassed by her in-laws including the petitioner, but that allegation is of a distant past. The matter was settled between the parties at the instance of Police and local persons. On the day the deceased committed suicide, the petitioner informed the Police first in point of time that her sister-in-law was not opening the door. Later, the dead body was found hanging from the ceiling. The petitioner was granted interim protection by this Court and was asked to join the investigation.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner joined the investigation.

Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that now the chargesheet has been filed and the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused and has been sent up for trial.

Nonetheless, considering the relationship of the petitioner with the deceased as also taking into account that the petitioner was the first person to inform about the possible suicide of the deceased, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of her arrest, on her furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/SHO of the concerned Police Station.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall participate in the trial in the right earnestness.

The application is allowed.

Any observation made in the order would not prejudicially affect the case of the prosecution or the defense.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J JANUARY 06, 2016 ns