IN 

THE   HIGH COURT OF   DELHI  AT NEW DELHI

Criminal Misc.(Main)       of 2021

In the matter of:

State ... Appellate/ Petitioner

Vs.

Anita Mishra & Ors. … Respondent/Accused

FIR No.07/2021
P.S. New Ashok Nagar
U/s:304-B/498A/34 IPC

INDEX

S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. MEMO OF PARTIES
2. PETITION U/S 439(2) OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY AND ON
BEHALF OF PETITIONER
FORCANCELLATION OF BAIL / SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.03.2021
PASSED BY MR. SANJEEV KUMAR
AGGARWAL, LD. ADDITIONAL SESSION
JUDGE (SFTC), EAST KARAKARDOOMA
COURT, NEW DELHI , IN BAIL
APPLICATIONS FILED BY RESPONDENTS
BEARING BAIL APPLICATION NO. 70/21,
71/21 AND 72/21 IN CASE FIR NO. 07/2021 P.S
NEW ASHOK NAGAR NEW DELHI, U/S 304-
B,498A AND 34 IPC
3. ANNEXURE A
Copy of the impugned order dated 02-03-2021
passed by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal , Ld.
Additional Session Judge (STFC), East KKD
 Court, New Delhi
4. ANNEXURE B
Copy of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the matter of Gurcharan
Singh and others etc. v. State (Delhi
Administration), 1978 AIR 179.
5. ANNEXURE C
Copy of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the matter of Puran v.
Rambilas & Anr ., Appeal (crl.) 599 of 2001
6. ANNEXURE D
Copy of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kanwar
Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.,
(2012) 12 SCC 180
7. VAKALATNAMA

PETITIONER

Through

New Delhi Name of adv

Date:
 IN THE   HIGH COURT OF   DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Criminal Misc.(Main)       of 2021

In the matter of:

State ... Appellate/ Petitioner

Vs.

Anita Mishra & Ors. … Respondent/Accused

FIR No.07/2021
P.S. New Ashok Nagar
U/s:304-B/498A/34 IPC

MEMO OF PARTIES

State ... Appellate/ Petitioner

Vs.

Anita Mishra(Mother-in law) … Respondent No. 1.

Navo Nath Mishra(Father-in Law) …Respondent No. 2

Hemant Kumar(Husband) …Respondent No. 3

Filed By :-

Date: Petitioner

Through

Counsel

Name of Advocate

Place:
 IN THE   HIGH COURT  OF   DELHI  AT NEW DELHI
Criminal Misc.(Main)       of 2021

In the matter of:

State ... Appellate/ Petitioner

Vs.

Anita Mishra & Ors. … Respondent/Accused

FIR No.07/2021
P.S. New Ashok Nagar
U/s:304-B/498A/34 IPC

PETITION UNDER SECTION 439(2) CR.P.C. SEEKING THE

CANCELLATION OF BAIL GRANTED TO ABOVE NAMED ACCUSED
VIDE ORDER DATED 02.03.2021 BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL
SESSION JUDGE (SFTC),EAST KKD COURT.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

THAT the present petition under section 439(2) of the code of Criminal
Procedure for cancellation of the bail of the accused/respondents is being
filed by the petitioner. The Respondents have been arrayed as an accused for
an offence u/s 304-B/498A/34 I.P.C. registered vide FIR No. 07/2021 Police
Station New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi on the allegations of dowry death.The
respondents had moved application under section 438 of the code of criminal
Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail before learned Additional Sessions
Judge,(SFTC) KKD. The said application being Bail Application No.70/21
to which the learned Additional Sessions Judge(SFTC), East KKD Court
granted anticipatory bail to all three respondents.
A copy of the impugned order dated 02-03-2021 passed by Mr. Sanjeev
Kumar Aggarwal , Ld. Additional Session Judge (STFC), East KKD Court,
New Delhi is annexed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE-A.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE MATTER

1. That pursuant to the complaint dates 07.01.2021 by the Petitioner

Brother Amit Jha (brother of decreased), FIR No. 07/2021 under
sections 304-B,498A 34 IPC, PS New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi
against Respondent 1,2 and 3 for dowry death of Petitioner
decreased Neha Mishra.
2. That the Petitioner namely Neha Jha got married with the respondent
no.3 i.e. Hemant Kumar on 27.11.2017 at Delhi according to Hindu
rites and ceremonies.
3. That on 27.11.2017 marriage of the petitioner and respondent was
pre-dominantly celebrated at the expenses of family of the
petitioner. The respondent and his family members did not
contribute in the expenses of marriage except few Sagan.
4. That after the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent both lived
and co-habited as husband and wife at flat no.153, Samrat Apartment,
Vasundhra Enclave, New Delhi-110091.
5. That the respondents no.1,2,3, through respondent no.2 demanded
Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lacs Only) in dowry just few days
before the date of the marriage, when invitation cards of the
marriage were already distributed by the petitioner and her family.
Respondent no.2 told the father of petitioner that he had spent so
much of money in the studies of his son (respondent no.3) so the
above mentioned amount should be paid to them or they would
break relationship and cancel the marriage, however the family of
petitioner pleaded with respondents no.1,2,3 that they cannot afford
such a huge amount to give and not to break the marriage, somehow
the respondents no.1,2,3 agreed for marriage to be solemnized on
proposed date.
6. That after the marriage, the nature of respondents no.1,2,3 was very
quarrelsome and they used to torture Petitioner on very petty issues
 and used to make taunt on her for not bringing appropriate dowry as
per their demand, however Petitioner used to tell respondents
no.1,2,3 that her parents are poor and they have already spent in the
marriage even more than what they could afford. Late Neha Jha
used to ignore the ill treatment by respondents no.1,2,3 towards her
because of love and affection for respondents no.1,2,3 being
husband and in-laws.
7. That the respondents no.1,2,3 did not allow Petitioner Late Neha
Mishra to visit her parents even though they are living in same
city(Delhi), as condition was imposed on her that if she wants to visit
her parents she has to fulfill all the demands of respondents no.1,2,3.
During her period of marriage of three years she allowed to visit her
parents hardly three times.
8. That after marriage first instance when decreased Neha Mishra had
visited her parental home on29.07.2021 on occasion of some
festival and due to this reason her in-laws had tried to end
relationship with her. Petitioner Brother Amit Jha thereby visited to
in-laws of her sister and requested them not to ill-treat his sister and
if they have any issue they may talk to their parents and figure out
the solution. The following day on 16.07.2018 petitioner dropped
sister Neha to her in-laws house.
9. That Petitioner Late Neha Mishra father had transferred Rs. 60000
in A/C of Late Neha Mishra in month of November 2018 as demand
of her in-laws.
10. That in year 2019 Late Neha Mishra delivered a baby boy.
Petitioner family tried to contact respondents but they were unable
to contact them. Infact the news of delivery of baby boy was
intimated by Petitioner herself after she regained her consciousness.
Petitioner also told her parents that her in-laws were asking for
Rs.50000 and some jewellery if they want to visit their grandson.
11. That petitioner in-laws had also asked for four wheeler or
relative amount from parents of petitioner if she wants to visit to
her father after petitioner father had cured from covid-19 in month
of January 2021 else she cannot visit her Paternal home.
12. That on 06.01.2021 respondent no. 3 had called Petitioner
Brother Amit Jha asked him to take his sister as she was insisting to
 visit her parental home. He also added that he know the law and he
want to give divorce to his sister and will see what will happen.
13. That on the night of 07.02.2021 at 12:26 a.m. respondent no.
3 called Petitioner Brother and told him that Petitioner is no more
and hang up the phone thereafter.

GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL

1. That the learned Additional Sessions Judge,(SFTC) KKD had failed to

realize the gravity of offence before passing the impugned order dated
02.03.2021. The learned Additional Sessions Judge,(SFTC) KKD had not
taken relevant fact into consideration and only relied of the statement of
complaint given to executive magistrate and statement given to IO u/s 161
CRPC.
2. That at the time when statement of Amit Jha , Rajni Jha and Kavita Jha was
recorded by Executive magistrate on 07.01.2021 they all were in trauma due
to loss of their loved ones. It was well obvious that time that they won’t be
able to give details with respect to date month or year in which dowry was
demanded. The learned Additional session Judge failed to consider this
situation before passing the impugned order.
3. That the impugned order dated 02.03.2021 of grant of anticipatory bail
suffers from infirmity resulting in miscarriage of justice as the case FIR has
been registered u/s 304B/498A/34 IPC on the statement of Amit Jha, brother
of deceased alleging for dowry death of his sister which indeed is a heinous
crime .
4. That Dowry death is a serious matter and cannot be taken so lightly. No
positive finding has been recorded by the Addl. Session Judge in his order.
The grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place, given the very serious
nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles them for bail and
thus cannot be justified.
5. That accused had also seems to influence the witnesses and are also trying to
tamper with the evidences.
6. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gurcharan Singh and others etc.
v. State (Delhi Administration), 1978 AIR 179 appreciate the position of
High Court. Relevant para is reproduced hereunder for the kind perusal of
this Hon’ble court:
 “The High Court took note of this serious infirmity of approach
of the Sessions Judge as also the unwarranted manner bording
on his prematurely commenting on the merits of the case by
observing that "such deposition cannot escape a taint of
unreliability in some measure or other". The only question
which the Sessions Judge was required to consider at that stage
was whether there was prima facie case made out, as alleged,
on the statements of the witnesses and on other materials.”

Copy of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter
of Gurcharan Singh and others etc. v. State (Delhi Administration), 1978 AIR 179
is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure –B

7. That in Puran v. Rambilas & Anr., the appellant was charged under Sections 498-
A and 304-B of the IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur released the
appellant therein, on bail. The High Court cancelled the bail granted to the
appellant.
Copy of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter
of Puran v. Rambilas & Anr ., Appeal (crl.) 599 of 2001 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure –C

8. That in Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., (2012) 12 SCC
180 wherein Para 8 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by taking reliance of Doulat
Ram Case stated:
“Reliance was placed on Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana in
support of this submission. This court observed that in Dolat
Ram, it was clarified that the above instances are merely
illustrative and not exhaustive and one such ground for
cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and
evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in
a heinous crime and that too without giving any reasons. This
court observed that such an order would be against the
principles of law and, interest of justice would require that
such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. This
court found that inasmuch as the Sessions Court had ignored
vital materials while granting bail, the High Court had rightly
 cancelled the bail. It was further observed that such orders
passed in heinous crimes would have serious impact on the
society and an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by
the trial court has to be corrected.”
Copy of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter
of Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., (2012) 12 SCC 180 is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure –D

9. That the offence committed by the Respondents are against the administration of
judicial system and tantamount to polluting the purity of the stream of justice.

10.That it shall be otherwise expedient and in the interest of justice in view of the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the bail granted to the accused
/respondent No.1 be cancelled. The continuance of the Respondents on bail would
lead to grave injustice and would hamper the course of law.

11.That the Petitioner undertakes that he has not filed any other petition/application
seeking similar relief arising from the abovementioned case, before this Hon’ble
Court or any other Court parallel to this Hon’ble Court and before Hon`ble
Supreme Court of India

12.That there is no delay in filing the present petition and the same has been filed at
the earliest opportunity.

PRAYER

In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, and in the
interest of Justice, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

1. Set aside the impugned order dated 02.03.2021 passed by Mr. Sanjeev
Kumar Aggarwal, Ld. Additional Session Judge(SFTC), (East)
Karakardooma Courts, New Delhi, in Bail Application No. 70/21, 71/21 and
72/21.
AND
2. Pass necessary order/direction thereby directing to arrest Respondents in FIR
No. 07/2021 and to send him to custody.
 AND

3. Pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

It is prayed accordingly.

Place: New Delhi Petitioner

Through
Date: NAME OF ADV.