IN THE COURT OF SH. N.K. MALHOTRA, LD. ADD.

SESSIONS
JUDGE, TIZ HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

Akash Sharma @ Nikhil Vs State of NCT of Delhi

FIR No. 355/14

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C FOR GRANT OF

REGULAR BAIL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT/ACCUSED,
AKASH SHARMA

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present application is being filed U/s 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail
on behalf of the accused in FIR no. 355, dated 26.07.2014.
2. That the accused is innocent and has committed no offence and is being falsely
implicated.
3. That the present applicant/accused has applied for bail for a total of 4 times and
the last bail application i.e. the 4th application of bail in the present case was
moved on behalf of the accused on 25.01.2018, but the same was dismissed in
default of appearance.
4. That the prosecution’s case is such that the present case arose as a result of FIR
no. 355, dated 26.07.2014 U/s 304B/498A IPC lodged by the complainant, Smt.
Meena Gupta who is the mother of the deceased against the accused/applicant.
The allegations in the FIR are such that the complainant states that the accused
and the deceased had performed love marriage on 17.11.2013. Thereafter, during
the month of April 2014, the complainant received a call from the deceased
wherein the deceased told the complainant that she was being beaten up by her
husband i.e. the accused and further informed that she was hurt and requested the
complainant to come and take the deceased with her. Thereafter the complainant
went to the matrimonial home of the deceased on the same day and took the
deceased back with her. During the complainant’s visit to the matrimonial home
of the deceased, the complainant was told by the deceased that the accused used
to beat up the deceased a lot and used to keep on demanding the deceased to get
Rs.2-5 lakhs. Further, the case of the prosecution is that after about one week of
the deceased returning to her parental home, the accused, the deceased’s devar-
Aman, mother-in-law of the deceased and one more chachera devar came to the
house of the complainant wanting to take the deceased back with them. On such
visit by the accused and his family members, the complainant retaliated by saying

1
 that “you people beat my daughter so I wont send her with you” to which the
accused and his family members apologized and promised the complainant to not
commit such a mistake again and thereafter forcibly took the deceased.
Thereafter, the complainant had no contact with the deceased and when the
complainant did try to call the deceased, her phone would come as switch off. On
25.07.2014, the complainant received a call from P.S. Mundka informing her that
her daughter (deceased) had committed suicide.
5. That the accused was arrested on 27.07.2014 vide arrest memo marked as
Ex.PW20/C has been in custody since then.
6. That subsequently, the examination in chief and cross of all the prosecution
witnesses has been concluded and a close examination of the same shows that the
accused is innocent and deserves bail.
7. That a total of 20 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, of which the
material witnesses, being the family members of the deceased are:
 PW1: Smt. Meena Gupta (Mother-in-law of the accused)
 PW2: Sh. Rakesh Gupta
 PW3: Pandit Veerpal Shastri
 PW4: Atul Mahawar
 PW6: Sh. Ashish Gupta
 PW16: Smt. Rinku
8. That it is submitted that so far as the allegation of cruelty is concerned the
deposition of PW1, Smt. Meena Gupta is of no help to the Prosecution. Her
statement on the point of cruelty is hearsay in nature and hence inadmissible. The
prosecution surprisingly did not show the medical records Ex.PW5/C that
according to the Prosecution is set have prepared on 20.04.2014. The reason for
the same is not difficult to understand if one examines Ex.PW4/A, which is the
Medical record of the deceased for her treatment at Baraily. On the said records,
the doctor has clearly stated that the Deceased had suffered a fall on 16.04.2014.
This document demolishes the entire story of the Prosecution including the
medical record Ex.PW5/C of the Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital at Shastri Park
Delhi prepared in the name of “Priya” whereas the name of the deceased was
“Priyanka”. Moreover, Ex.PW5/C which is the medical records of the deceased at
Jag Pravesh in Shastri Park, Delhi reflects the timing of the preparation at 19:36
i.e. 7:30 pm whereas PW1 in her deposition has stated that they had gone to the
hospital in daytime. None of the prosecution witnesses who were the family
members of the deceased and had allegedly taken the deceased to the hospital
have been confronted with Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW5/C.
9. That the present accused and his family members according to the Prosecution’s
story came face to face with each other on two occasions i.e. once at the
matrimonial home of the deceased during April 2014 and once in Baraily. The
evidence which is on records on both these interactions does not show any

2
 demand of dowry or any other gift which further shows that the case of dowry
demand by the Prosecution is an after thought.
10. That the prosecutions story on the point of interaction between the deceased and
her family members is in conflict with the evidence which has come on record.
On one hand the mother of the deceased states that they had never contacted the
deceased prior to the 1st meeting in April 2014 and could not contact her after the
2nd meeting at Baraily. However, the brother of the deceased (PW6) in his
statement has clearly stated that after the accused had taken the deceased back to
Delhi from Baraily, they had not tried to contact the deceased, which is in
contradiction with what was stated by PW1. Further, PW6 also states that while
leaving after the assurances made by the accused and his family, the deceased had
stated to them i.e. PW6 and PW1 that they should not continue having
communication with her and in fact PW1 advised the deceased not to accompany
the accused again to Delhi, but the deceased refused to act upon the advise of her
mother and it was in this continuation that it was agreed to not maintain
communication in future. It is submitted that this evidence totally demolishes the
prosecutions story.
11. That it is submitted that the evidence on the point of cruelty so given by the other
family members of the deceased i.e. PW2, Rakesh Gupta, PW4, Atul Mahawar
and PW6, Ashish Gupta amount to hearsay and are inadmissible in evidence as
none of the these prosecution witnesses had any personal knowledge of the same.
12. PW3, Pandit Veerpal Shastri in his statement has exhibited the marriage
certificate, which is marked as Ex.PW-3/A and further also states that no demand
for dowry was made at the time of marriage from the side of the accused.
13. PW16, Smt. Rinku (sister-in-law of the accused) in her statement described the
events of the date on which the deceased had committed suicide and in doing so
clearly states that the accused was not present at home at the time of the incident
and it was her who found the deceased hanging from the ceiling fan.
14. That the post mortem report dated 26.07.2014 which is marked as Ex.PX3 states
the reason for death as asphyxia as a result of hanging and that all injuries are
antemortem in nature and the post mortem reveals no external injury.
15. That the present applicant/accused is in custody for the last 4 years and in the
light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above deserves to be enlarged on
bail.
16. That the present applicant/accused is willing to furnish surety and bail bond to the
satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court in case he is ordered to be released on bail. The
present applicant/accused is also willing to abide by any condition, if imposed
while granting him bail.

GROUNDS

3
A. Because the evidence on the point of cruelty given by the main prosecution
witness i.e. PW1 (mother of the deceased) is inadmissible in evidence as it
amounts to hearsay.
B. Because the medical documents of the deceased for being treated at the hospital in
Delhi and Baraily are contradictory and reflect major discrepancies.
C. Because the evidence of the brother of the deceased i.e. PW6, Ashish Gupta
majorly contradicts the evidence given by the mother of the deceased i.e. PW1,
Meena Gupta on the point of trying to contact the deceased after the second
meeting in Baraily and the reason behind the same that being that the deceased
herself communicated to them not to contact her at all.
D. Because the chain of continuing cruelty or cruelty soon before death which is an
essential ingredient of Section 304B IPC, is broken after the deceased was taken
back to her matrimonial home at Delhi from Baraily and no contact was
maintained between the deceased and any of her family members.
E. Because the High Court of Calcutta, in the case of Niharbala Banerjee and Anr.
Vs The State, MANU/WB/0245/1988, has held that in a situation where the
depositions reflect that the element of continuity of transaction is lacking or where
there are distant transactions having no proximate relation to the death, such
statement are inadmissible in evidence.
F. Because the High Court of Gauhati, in the case of Sri Biplab Chakraborthy vs The
State of Tripura, MANU/GH/0123/2011 has held that evidence which is not based
on personal knowledge of the witness giving it cannot be admissible.
G. Because there is insufficient and contradictory evidence against the accused.

PRAYER
1. It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Grant bail to the present applicant/accused who is in custody since 27.07.2014.
b) And/or pass such other order/orders as this as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances mentioned above, in the interest of
justice.