The delay of 18 hours in registering the FIR by the aggrieved wife even after being reached out personally by the police is a valid ground for suspicion and such cases of matrimonial disputes are often used to implicate the family members of the husband, and therefore provides the benefit of doubt to the accused while considering his bail application. The aforesaid has been established by the Delhi High Court in the case of Jilu Kumar v. The State (N.C.T of Delhi) [BAIL APPLN. 1801/2021] which was decided by a single judge bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad on 16th July 2021.
The facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner is the brother of father-in-law of the complainant. It had been alleged by the complainant that first she was beaten up by her husband and later on her brother was called and was stabbed with a knife. Her brother and elder sister received grievous hurt. earned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is in custody since 29.01.2021 and the charge-sheet has been filed. He contends that the petitioner is being falsely implicated by the complainant and her family. He states that the present ease arises out of a matrimonial dispute and in matrimonial disputes there is a tendency to implicate all the family members. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the FIR and contends that the incident occurred on 15.01.2021 at 9:00 PM whereas the FIR was registered only the next day i.e. 16.01.2021 at 3:15 PM. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the portion in the FIR where it is mentioned that on the night of 15.01.2021 the Police was informed about the incident. He states that when the Police reached the hospital and enquired about the condition of Deepak (injured/victim) they were told that he is not in a condition to give a statement. He states that the FIR further shows that when the Police reached the house of the complainant, the complainant and her family members declined to give their statement on the ground that they need rest and they will give their statement the next day. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore contends that the FIR is not a true narration of the facts and the petitioner has been falsely implicated. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is in custody for more than four months now and due to COVID-19 the possibility of this case proceeding further is remote and therefore he be granted bail.
The court considered the facts and arguments presented. It was of the opinion that “this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, one of them should be a relative of the petitioner, to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. b) The petitioner shall not leave NCT of Delhi without the prior permission of the Court. c) The petitioner is directed to give all his mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and keep them operational at all times. d) The memo of parties shows the address of the petitioner as R/o H.No. E-33/1, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase -II,New Delhi. He shall continue to reside at the same address and if he changes the address, he shall immediately intimate the same to the IO. e) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence or try to influence the witnesses or exert pressure on the complainant or any of her immediate family members. f) The family of the complainant stays at Govindpuri and the petitioner stays at Okhla which is 5 Kms. away from Govindpuri. The petitioner is directed not to enter Govindpuri till the complainant, her father, mother and other public witnesses are not examined. g) Violation of any of these conditions will result in the cancellation of the bail given to the petitioner.”
