__________________________________

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

_______________________________________
STATE
(PROSECUTION)

VS.

PRADEEP (HUSBAND)
RAM SINGH (FATHER-IN-LAW)
DEVI SINGH (MOTHER-IN-LAW)
SHIV SINGH (BROTHER-IN-LAW)
(DEFENCE)

____________________________________
(ANTICIPATORY BAIL)
FOR OFFENCE CHARGED UNDER:
SECTION 304-B INDIAN PENAL CODE, SECTION 498-A READ WITH
SECTION 34 INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF THE
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961.

____________________________________________
UPON SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

____________________________________________
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents 02
List of Abbreviations 03
Index of Authorities 04
Table of Cases 04
Books Referred 05
Statues 05
Websites 06
Statement of Jurisdiction 07
Statement of Facts 09
Statement of Charges 11
Summary of Pleadings 12
Body of Pleadings 14
Prayer 20

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

Cri LJ/Cr Criminal Law Journal

LJ

Cr. P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure

IPC Indian Penal Code

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec. Section

v. Versus

u\s Under section

Hon’ble Honourable

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES:

1. Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka, 2017 Cri. L.J. 2769

(SC)
2. Prahlad Singh Bhati v. N.C.T. Delhi 2001 (4) SCC 280

3. Manohar Lal v. State of Harayana 2014 Vol. 4 Crimes SC pg.79

4. Durga Prasad and Another v. State of M.P (2010) III Cri.LJ. 3419
(S.C.C)
5. Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar 2005 Cri.L.J.1418 (S.C.C)

6. Raja Lal Singh v. State of Jharkhand 2007 III Cri.L.J. 3262 (S.C.)
7. Devraj Sao v. State of Bihar(JHAR) 2007 Cri.L.J (NOC) 597
8. Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. V. State of Punjab (1980)2 SCC
565.
9. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka (2010)3 SCC 152.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

 5

BOOKS REFERRED:

1. M.L Bhargava , Rights of Accused (Protection for arrested person –

pre trail & post trail)
2. R Chakraborty , Criminal Jurisprudence.
3. Satish Ahuja , Supreme Court Criminal Ready Referencer.
4. Ram Shelkar , Dowry Death.
5. Gaur , KD , Criminal Law: Cases and Material, (6th Ed. 2009)
6. Gupte and Dighe, Criminal Manual, (7th Ed. 2007)
7. Harris, Criminal Law, (22nd ED.2000)
8. I,III,IV Nelson R.A. Indian Penal Code, 10th Ed.(2008)
9. I,Kathuria, R.P. Supreme Court on Criminal Law, 1950-2002,(6th
Ed.2002)
10. II , Mitra, B.B., Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(20th Ed.2006)
11. II, Nandi, Criminal Ready Referencer, (2nd Ed. 2007)
12. II, Princep’s Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(18th Ed. 2005)
13. III, Sarvaria, SK, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)
14. Kelkar, R.V. Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011)
15. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)
16. R Ramachandran, Crime Prosecution Defence & Investigation
Guide.

STATUTES:
1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

 6

WEBSITES:
1. http://www.findlaw.com
2. http://www.judis.nic.in
3. http://www.manupatra.co.in
4. http://www.scconline.com
5. http://www.supremcourtofindia.nic.in
6. http://www.vakilno.1.com
7. http://www.legalservice.com
8. http://indiankanoon.org
9. http://www.lawkhoj.com
10. http://www.lexsite.com
11. http://www.indiancourts.nic.in
12. http://www.legallyindia.com
13. http://www.supremecourtcaselaw.com
14. http://www.indlaw.com
15. http://www.indiacorplaw.blogspot.com
16. http://www.lexisnexis.co.in
17. http://www.linklegal.in
18. http://www.lawyerclubindia.com
19. http://www.indianlawcases.com
20. http://www.kanoon.com

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has jurisdiction to try the instant
matter Under Section 177 read with Section 438 and Section 397 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 177:

‘177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial -

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court

wthin whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

READ WITH SECTION 438 AND 397.

‘438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest –

Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on

accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply
to High Court or the Court of Sessions for a direction under this section
that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail ; and that
Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following
factors, namely:-
1. the nature and gravity of the accusation;
2. the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he
has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in
respect of any cognizable offence;
3. the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and
4. where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or
humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested;

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

 8

‘397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision. –

The High Court or any Session judge may call for and
Examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal
Court Situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of
satisfying Itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety
of any finding ,sentence or order, recorded or passed, and so to the
regularity of any Proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when
calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentences or
order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be
released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the
record.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

9
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

On 1st September 2017 at about 4:30pm the chain of events that

transpired that day were:

1. Pradeep Singh and Preeti Singh got married on 23rd October 2011 at
New Delhi and they were blessed with son namely Shyam on 12th
June 2012.

2. On 1st September 2017, at about 4;30 pm ; Ram Singh (Father-in-

law) heard the cries of Preeti on the 2nd floor of his house at New
Delhi.
3. He rushed to 2nd floor of the house and saw Preeti in burning
condition and he tried to douse the fire.

4. On the information of Preeti Singh, he also found her son Shyam

(grandson) was also suffered with burnt injury.

5. Preeti Singh and her son were shifted to hospital for medical
treatment.

6. On the same day 1st September at 6:40pm her statement was

recorded by the doctor concerned in the hospital.

7. Preeti Singh made statement that she and her son caught fire
accidently while she was pouring kerosene oil in the lamp and by
the fall of lamp kerosene oil got spilled on both of them and got
burn injury.

8. Father of Preeti Singh (Yogesh Kumar) also reached the hospital on

the same night after receiving the information.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

 10

9. At 10:55pm minor sin (Shyam) got expired due to his burn injuries.

10. On 4th September 2017 Father of Preeti Singh (Yogesh Kumar)

loged a complaint in the police station on which FIR No. (183/17)
offences u/s 498-A read with Sec 34, IPC and Sec 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was registered with allegation for
torturing her for not meeting demand of dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs.

11. On 7th September 2017 accused persons Pradeep (Husband), Ram

Singh (Father-in-law), Devi Singh (Mother-in-law) and Shiv Singh
(Brother-in- law) applied for anticipatory bail before Sessions Judge
Saket.
12. On 10th September 2017 Session judge Saket granted ad-interim
anticipatory bail to accused persons till next date 18th September
2017.

13. On 17th September 2017 Preeti Singh expired and offence under Sec
304-B IPC was added with rest of offences in the FIR.

14. On 18th September 2017 Hon,ble Sessions Judge Saket confirmed

the anticipatory bail and was granted to Pradeep Singh and his
family members.

15. Complainant Yogesh Kumar (Father of Deceased) filed petition

before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for cancellation of anticipatory
bail granted to the accused persons.
 11

STATEMENT OF CHARGES

CHARGES 1 :
Pradeep Singh, Ram Singh, Devi Singh and Shiv Singh have been
charged for offences under section 498-A ,304-B IPC read with Section
34 IPC read with offences under section 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act , 1961.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

 12

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

ISSUE – I

WHETHER COURT OF SESSION SAKET HAS PASSED A

VALID ORDER DATED – 10TH SEPTEMBER 2017 BY
GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO ACCUSED PERSONS
NAMELY PRADEEP, RAM SINGH , DEVI SINGH AND SHIV
SINGH, IN CASE UNDER FIR NO- (183/17) OFFENCES UNDER
SECTION 498-A READ WITH SECTION 34 IPC READ WITH
SECTION 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused

persons namely Pradeep Singh, Ram Singh, Devi Singh and Shiv Singh
are entitled to get anticipatory bail from Court of Session Judge Saket as
there is no sufficient material evidence gathered by the prosecution
against them for connecting the accused for subjecting cruelty or
harassment “soon before Preeti’s death” in relation to any demand of
dowry for committing death.
Furthermore, they had neither intention nor motive to commit such a
crime and thus this crime cannot stand.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

 13

ISSUE-II
WHETHER THE COURT OF SESSION SAKET HAS
PASSED A WELL REASONED BAIL ORDER DATED- 18TH
SEPTEMBER BY CONFIRMING ANTICIPATORY BAIL
DATED-10TH SEPTEMBER 2017 IN FAVOUR OF ACCUSED
PERSONS. DEPISTE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 304-B IPC
WAS ADDED ON ACCOUNT DEATH OF PREETI. ?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions Saket

has passed a valid reasoned bail order by confirming his ad-interim
anticipatory bail order dated- 10th September 2017 by relying upon the
dying declaration statement of Preeti before doctor in the hospital wherein
she stated that she and her son caught fire when she was pouring kerosene
oil in the lamp which accidently fell down, the oil got spilled over and both
of them got burnt. Since there is no cogent and overwhelming evidence on
the records which connects the accused persons for the commission of the
aforesaid offences.
For establishing the prima facie of objecting the ad-interim
anticipatory bail, prosecution must have to show the material that soon
before the death of Preeti Singh,she was subjected to crulty or harassment
for or in connection with the demand of dowry, then only a presumption
can be drawn that accused persons have committed the dowry death of
her1.
Hence the order of anticipatory bail granted by Session Court
Saket does not require any interference.

_____________________________________________
1. G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

 14

BODY OF PLEADING

ISSUE-I

WHETHER COURT OF SESSION SAKET HAS PASSED A

VALID ORDER DATED- 10TH SEPTEMBER 2017 BY
GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO ACCUSED PERSONS
NAMELY PRADEEP, RAM SINGH , DEVI SINGH AND SHIV
SINGH IN CASE UNDER FIR NO- (183/17) OFFENCES
UNDER
SECTION 498-A READ WITH SECTION 34 IPC READ WITH
SECTION 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT
1961?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused

persons namely Pradeep Singh, Ram Singh, Devi Singh and Shiv Singh
are entitled to get anticipatory bail from Court of Session judge Saket as
there is no sufficient material evidence gathered by the prosecution
against them for connecting the accused for subjecting cruelty or
harassment to deceased Preeti Singh.

1.1 Accused person have right for bail.

Bail is a valuable right of an accused but it can only be granted by
the Court on valid ground only after due application of mind to all the
relevant factors and the circumstances relating to the alleged offence.
Justice with one should not result injustice to another. Justice implies
the reasonable and legal treatment to all concerned. In considering
quest of bail, justice to both sides governs judicious exercise of the
court’s jurisdiction. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is
that the accused is presumed to be innocent until guilt is brought
home.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
 15

1.2 Power for grant of Anticipatory Bail Sec 438 CrPC.

Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on
accusation of having committed a non- bailable offence, he may apply
to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this
section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and
that court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the
following factors, namely:-

1. The nature and gravity of the accusation;

2. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he
has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court
in respect of any cognizable offence;
3. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and
4. Where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or
humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested,

1.3 Factors / Conditions for grant of Bail.

While exercising the power for grant of bail, the Court has to
keep in mind certain circumstances and factors. The requisite
factors are:
(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in
case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (ii)
reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant; (iii) prima facia
satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.23

_______________________________________
2. Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka, 2017 Cri LJ 2769 (SC).
3. Prahlad Singh Bhati v.. N.C.T.Delhi 2001(4) SCC 280.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

 16

1.4 The Deceased was not subjected to cruelty or

Harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband “soon before her death” in relation to any
“demand of dowry”.
This requisite is not fulfilled in the instant case as the deceased
was not subjected to any cruelty or harassment “soon before her
death” by her husband or her in- laws. In a case the prosecution
failed to prove that accused harassed the deceased “soon before her
death” for or in connection with any “demand of dowry”. No specific
incidence was indicated suggesting the cruelty or harassment made
by the accused towards the deceased. Statement of the deceased was
not reliable and not trustworthy.4 Supreme Court held that cruelty or
harassment “soon before her death” must be proved in relation to
“demand of dowry”.5 It was held that a reading of Sec 304-B of IPC
shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death,
the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Prosecution has to
rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring
it within the preview of death occurring otherwise than in normal
circumstances.6 Expression “soon before her death” occurring in Sec
304-B, IPC is an elastic term. It can refer to period either
immediately before death of deceased or within a few days or few
weeks before death. What is relevant is that, there should be a
perceptible nexus between death of accused and dowry related
harassment or cruelty inflicted on the woman concerned.7

____________________________________________
4. Manohar Lal v. State of Haryana 2014 Vol. 4 Crimes SC pg.79
5. Durga Prasad and Anothers v. State of M.P.(2010)III Cri. L.J.3419(S.C.C)
6. Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar 2005 Cri. L.J. 1481 (S.C.C)
7. Raja Lal Singh v. State of Jharkhand 2007 III Cri. L.J. 3262 (S.C)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

 17

It is humbly contended that the accused person did not commit

dowry death as the deceased was not subjected to cruelty or harassment
by her husband or any relative of her husband “soon before her death”
and “no cruelty or harassment was there in connection with any
demand for dowry”. As per the dying declaration of deceased made
before doctor that she and her son caught fire when she was pouring
kerosene oil in the lamp which accidently fell down , the oil got spilled
over and both of them got burnt. Which clearly establishes no
involvement of any accused persons for the commission of charged
offences. There is no specific allegation of torture was attributed against
any of them and they were not the ultimate beneficiaries of the nature of
demand of dowry as aforesaid.
As per the initial investigation of police it was found that both
Pradeep & Preeti use to fight on petty issues but no angle of dowry
came into the picture till now and in the absence of cogent & pointed
evidence about the demand of dowry by the parents of the husband. It
can’t be ruled out their implication falsely by the complaint in this case.
The chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused is not
complete and they deserve benefit of doubt. It is settled law that graver
the offence, heavier the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to
prove the case.8
By applying the ratio decidendi in aforementioned judgments it is
establish that the accusation does appears to be false and groundless and
accused appears to be released on anticipatory bail and Court of
Sessions Saket has rightly granted ad-interim bail to accused persons.

_______________________________________________________

7. Devraj Sao v. State of Bihar (Jhar) 2007 Cri. L.J.(NOC) 597

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
 18

ISSUE-II

WHETHER THE COURT OF SESSION SAKET HAS

PASSED A WELL REASONED BAIL ORDER DATED-
18TH SEPTEMBER BY CONFIRMING AD-INTERIM
ANTICIPATORY BAIL DATED-10TH SEPTEMBER
2017 IN FAVOUR OFACCUSED PERSONS. DEPISTE
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 304-B IPC WAS ADDED
ON ACCOUNT DEATH OF PREETI SINGH?
While dealing with the application for granting bail cannot considered
the merits and demerits of the materials on the record and the Court can
considered the materials only for the specific purpose to find out whether the
prima facie case is made out for granting bail or not. The reading out the
impugned order dated 10th, September 2017 shows that the learned Sessions
Judge also considered the dying declaration statement of the deceased Preeti
Singh made before the doctor where there is no mention any demand of
dowry or treatment. It is also found that Ram Singh (father-in-law) after
hearing the cries of Preeti, he rushed to the second floor of the house and
tried to douse the fire and he also shifted mother and son in the hospital for
their medical treatment. There is absolutely no materials available on record
to show that there is no whisper about any alleged earlier ill treatment or
untoward incident except a bald and vague allegation of alleged demand of
dowry made by her father Yogesh Kumar.
The fact that the addition of offence under section 304-B IPC does
not suggest any change of the facts and circumstances of the case which was
under the consideration before the hon’ble Sessions Saket. Therefore, the
possibility of addition of offence under section 304-B IPC cannot be ground
for the refusing interim bail to the accused.
It is not the case of the prosecution that if released on bail, the
accused persons will flee from the justice and it will not be possible to secure
their
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
 19

presence to face the trial. It is also not the case of the prosecution that in the
event of bail, the accused persons will, in any manner, temper with the
prosecution evidence. Thus, there is no legal impediment in granting the
absolute anticipatory bail to the accused persons subject to suitable
conditions.
The power to cancel bail granted under section 439 CrPC has been
given to the Court of Sessions and the High Court. It is the duty of the Court
to cancel bail in proper circumstances under section 439 CrPC.
The anticipatory bail having been granted by the Sessions Judge
upon consideration of the relevant material placed before the Court and there
is no complaint by the investigating officer that the accused persons are not
cooperating in the investigations after the grant of ad-interim bail on 10th
September 2017 or that they had misused the anticipatory bail granted to
them. The case of accused persons falls under the broad parameters to be
kept in consideration for deciding petition for the grant of anticipatory bail
as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case title“ Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab ” (1980)2 SCC 565. It is trite of law that bail
once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on a
supervening event has been made out. The prosecution / complainant failed
to bring any cogent and overwhelming circumstances for the cancellation of
bail before the hon’ble High Court as such anticipatory bail granted by the
learned Sessions Judge Saket cannot be cancelled and same has been granted
after considering the principles of bail.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

 20

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the arguments advanced and

authorities cited, may this Hon’ble High Court be pleased to:-

The petition filed by the complainant for the cancellation of

anticipatory bail dated 18th, September 2017 by Hon’ble Sessions
Judge Saket in favour of accused persons may be dismissed in the
interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Place : Delhi. S/d ______________

Date 08th, April 2019.

Counsel for the Defence.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
Submitted by: BHUMIKA RAJPUT

SEMESTER : 10TH

ROLL NO. : 6505/DLCF/16

GROUP NO. : B

GROUP INCHARGE: MISS SUMIKSHA

RAZDAN

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE