Siddharth Ravindra Jain vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2008 Latest Caselaw 1023 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       Bail Application No.1433/2008

%                        Date of Decision : 14.07.2008


Siddharth Ravindra Jain                          ....... Petitioners
                 Through:        Mr.Mohit Kumar Shah, Advocate.


                                   Versus


State of NCT of Delhi                            ......... Respondent
                  Through :      Mr.Amit Sharma, APP for the State.


CORAM :-
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

    1. Whether reporters of Local papers may             YES
       be allowed to see the judgment?
    2. To be referred to the reporter or not?            NO
    3. Whether the judgment should be reported           NO
       in the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

This is a petition under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code

for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, husband of the

complainant wife. On the basis of wife's complaint to Crime against

Women Cell, Nanakpura Police Station, FIR No.38 of 2008 was

registered on 24th June, 2008.

The petitioner has contended that he has committed no offence

and he has been falsely implicated. According to the petitioner, the

behavior of the respondent was strange right from the beginning and

after returning from the honeymoon. Allegation of suppression of the

fact that the complainant was suffering from Epilepsy is also made. It

is also alleged that all the belongings of the complainant were sent in

three boxes to her residence at Delhi by courier. Divorce proceedings

under Section 13(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act are also pending

before the Senior Civil Judge (SD), Baroda, bearing HMP No.129/2008.

The petitioner's grievance is that the marriage was solemnized by

committing a fraud on the petitioner and there is no proof of the fact

that he had committed cruelty on the complainant and the allegations

leveled against Mr.Tyagi are also concocted. The petitioner is stated to

be a bright boy who has started his career and has no criminal history.

It is also averred that perusal of FIR will reflect that no offence

punishable under Sections 406/498A/354/34 IPC has been committed.

Perusal of first information report reveals that the allegations are

that on 18th December, 2007 petitioner had allegedly told the

complainant that enough dowry was not given to him in marriage and

that the petitioner had been regularly torturing and beating the

complainant to force her to bring more money. It is also alleged that

the complainant was kept in a room without food and water. Shri

Arvind Tyagi had also tried to molest the complainant physically but the

petitioner did not take any action against Mr.Tyagi and she was rather

told that he married the complainant for fulfilling the desires of

Mr.Arvind Tyagi. The complainant is alleged to have made a call to the

petitioner on 14th February, 2008 to return the valuable household

articles, however, the same have not been returned.

Considering the pleas and contentions, the FIR does not seem to

be having bald accusations so as to humiliate or malign the reputation

of the applicant/petitioner only.

Considering the gravity and seriousness of accusations as alleged

by the complainant, I do not consider it to be a fit case to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused.

Consequently, the petition under Section 438 of Criminal

Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed.

July 14th , 2008                                  ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'