High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed for regular bail in FIR registered at Police Station Pandav Nagar for offences under Sections 341/302/323/304B/306/498A/34 IPC.

HC’s observations:

After hearing both sides the HC found that the petitioner is accused of a very serious offence. The Court observed that the complainant was not inside the jhuggi where the incident occurred. Therefore, the fact that he did not reveal that his daughter was administered with some poison on the very first instance cannot enure to the advantage of the accused. In fact, this shows that the complainant did not want to falsely implicate the petitioner for an offence of murder because had that been the case, the complainant would have, at the very first instance, stated that the poison was administered by the petitioner herein only. It is only when the niece of the deceased informed him that the poison was administered to the deceased by the petitioner herein that he gave a second statement. The statement of the complainant has been corroborated by the child witness who was present at the spot at the time of the incident.

The Court stated that “the reason as to why the child did not speak out immediately cannot be analysed at this stage. The grand-daughter of the complainant is only 12 years of age. Further, witnessing such kind of incident would have inevitably traumatised and horrified the child. This Court cannot find fault in her silence at this juncture.” HC relied upon second report from LBS Hospital who has opined that “After going through the PM report finding, FSL report and opinion from medicine Deptt, the cause of death was due to ingestion of Organophosphate poisoning cannot be ruled out.”

HC Held:

HC held that “The statement of the child witness, even though made after some time, does make out a prima facie case of Section 302 IPC. The constant say of the complainant that dowry was being demanded constantly from the deceased, prima facie, makes out a case of Section 304B IPC. Considering the fact that the petitioner is accused of a serious offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for which minimum imprisonment is life sentence, the consistent stand of the complainant that his daughter was constantly being pressurized and tortured for money, and also considering the fact that a small child has witnessed the incident, the evidence is yet to be recorded and the chances of the petitioner tampering with evidence and influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out at this juncture, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.”

HC declined the bail application.

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad

Case Title: Omender v. State

Case Details: BAIL APPLN. 2754/2021

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here