Payaal Sabhlok vs R.K. Sabhlok And Ors.
1993 Latest Caselaw 168 Del

JUDGMENT

Sat Pal, J.

(1) This is a petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. I vide order dated 30th January, 1993 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi.

(2) The petitioner and respondent No. 1 were married in the year 1986 and they have got a girl child. The parties had been living together in U.S.A. and Libia and in August, 1990 the petitioner returned to India. It has been alleged in the petition that the respondent No. I and other members of his family had been demanding dowry ofRs.50,000.00 and this demand was met partially by paying Rs.l5,000.00 . lt has further been alleged that on 6.11.91 respondent No. I himself gave a written Undertaking (copy of which is at page 39 of the petiton) that in future he will not misbehave or ill-treat his wife and he will not make any sort of useless allegations against her and will not stop her from visiting her parents. It has further been alleged that since the respondent No. 1 failed to comply with this undertaking and was making arrangements to go abroad leaving the petitioner and their daughter behind, the petitioner was compelled to lodge the present Fir No. 179/91 at P.S.Anand Vihar, Delhi on 13th November, 1991.

(3) Mean while, the respondent No.1filed an application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. The said application came up for hearing before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi on 20th January, 1993 and the following order was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on that date :- "THE case has been sent back to me for hearing of arguments. Arguments heard at length. Some suggestions about deposit of money in lieu of dowry items have been given by parties. Let that aspect of the amicable settlement be reported. It is a husband wife dispute. Put up on 25.1.93 for report and order."

(4) Thereafter on 30.1.93, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge pasted the impugned order whereby he directed that the respondent No. I be admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10.000.00 and a surety in the like amount in the event of his arrest and he was directed to join the investigation. In this order, it was stated that "the husband has offered for compromise through a written proposal drafted at the instance of Consul General of India at Dubai. It seems the said compromise offer is not acceptable to the complainant at this stage." The aforesaid order dated 30th January, 1993 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi has been challenged in the present petition.

(5) Mr. Grover, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order on 30th January, 1993 as admittedly the respondent No. I was aboard on that date, to support of his contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Amar Bharti Vs. State of Punjab reported in 20 (1981) Delhi Law Times (SN) 8. He further submitted that inspite of the undertaking given by the respondent No. 1 on 6th November, 1991, the said. respondent was ill-treating the petitioner as stated in the petition. He also submitted that in the order dated 20th January, 1993, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had clearly stated that some suggestions about deposit of money in lieu of dowry items had .been given by parties but without deposit of any money in lieu of dowry items, the respondent No. I was grazed bail on 30th January, 1993 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.

(6) Mr. A.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the challan in the present case has already been filed in May, 1992 and even a supplementary challan has also been filed now on 12th February, 1993 and as such the petitioner could approach the learned Trial Court to seek the relief. The present petition is, therefore, was not maintainable.

(7) Mr. Mathur, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 also reiterated that in view of the fact that the challan has already been filed and the respondent No. I has been granted bail by the learned trial Court, the present petition was not maintainable. Mr.Mathur further submitted that the respondent No.1 was apprehending his arrest in Delhi. Further by filing the application for grant of anticipatory bail he in fact had submitted to the jurisdiction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi and as such the said Court had jurisdiction to grant the bail. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on three judgments of this Court reported in the case, of Pritam Singh Vs State of Punjab, 18(1980)DelluLawTimes405; Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma Vs Delhi Administration, 1991 Cri. LJ.950 and Pritam Singh Vs State of Punjab, 19(1981) Delhi Law Times,300. The learned counsel further submitted that the present petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. was not maintainable in as much as on the date of filing of this petition respondent No. I had not been apprehended and released on bail.

(8) MR.GROVER in his rejoinder arguments submitted that during the pendency of this petition, admittedly the respondent No. I was apprehended at I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi and released tin bail on 6.2.93 pursuant to the impugned order dated 30th January, 1993. He also submitted that the trial court has granted bail pursuant to the aforesaid impugned order.

(9) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent No. I was apprehending his arrest in 'Delhi and by filing the application for grant of anticipatory bail which was accompanied by a vakalatnama defy signed by him, he had submitted before the jurisdiction of learned Addl. Sessions ' Judge, Shahdara, Delhi and as such the learned Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner himself has relied on an order passed on 20thjanuary, 1993 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi pursuant to file said application for grant of anticipatory bail.

(10) As regards the contention urged on behalf of respondent No. I that the present petition is not maintainable under Section 439(2) Cr. Procedure Code, I do not find any merit in this contention as admittedly during the pendency of this petition, the respondent No. I was released on bail on 6.2.93 in terms of order dated 30th January, 1993 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdara.

(11) From the order dated 20th January, 1993 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, it is.clear that some suggestions about deposit of money in lieu of dowry items had been given by the parties but in the impugned order dated 30th January, 1993 there is no mention about this a suggestion and on the contrary, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has referred to an earlier proposed settlement drafted at the instance of Consul General of India iri October, 1992.

(12) In view of the facts mentioned herein above, I am of the opinion that it will be in the interest of justice that the order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No. I is modified to the extent that it shall be subject to the condition that the said respondent deposits a sum ofRs.50,000.00 in the shape of Fdr for a period of one year in the name of the Trial Court and deposits the same with the trial court concerned. I order accordingly. After the FDRforasumofRs.50,000.00 I deposited with the Trial-Court, the earlier order passed by me on 22.2.1993 restraining the respondent No. I from leaving the country without prior permission of this Court shall stand vacated.

(13) With this order the petition stands disposed of.