Nidhi Jain vs State & Ors
2008 Latest Caselaw 1504 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CRL.M.C.No.359/2007

%                      Date of Decision: 01.09.2008
Nidhi Jain                                             .... Petitioner

                      Through Mr.S.K.Rungta, Advocate

                                Versus

State & Ors                                            .... Respondents

                      Through Mr.R.N.Vats, Advocate
                              Mr.R.K.Jain, Advocate for the
                              respondents.
                              SI Krishan, CAW Cell, NE District.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

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


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner/wife seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted

by the Sessions Judge by order dated 20th December, 2006 wherein it

was held that the respondents No.2 to 8 be released on bail on their

furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety

each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned.

The respondents No.2 to 8 were also directed to join investigation with

the IO as and when called.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that after the

grant of anticipatory bail by order dated 20th December, 2006 there has

not been any violation of the terms and conditions on which the

anticipatory bail was granted to the respondents No.2 to 8. The

respondents No. 2 to 8 have joined investigation as and when directed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after the

complaint dated 17th February, 2006 was filed on behalf of the

petitioner by her father, another complaint was filed on behalf of

respondents No.2 to 8 pursuant to which the petitioner had to go to the

police station where some sort of understanding was arrived at between

the complainant and respondents No.2 to 8 pursuant to which the

complaint filed by respondents No. 2 to 8 was withdrawn by them. The

learned counsel contends that filing of complaint prior to grant of

anticipatory bail was an attempt by the respondents No.2 to 8 to harass

and pressurize the petitioner which is a ground for cancellation of

anticipatory bail granted to the respondents No. 2 to 8. The learned

counsel for the petitioner has also sought cancellation of anticipatory

bail on the ground that the fact about the divorce petition filed by the

husband, respondent No.2 was not considered as that has led to

harassment of the petitioner and her two children.

Perusal of the complaint filed on behalf of petitioner reveals that

the allegations are too generic without any particulars. The complaint

filed on behalf of petitioner by her father is as under:-

"I respectfully beg to say that the marriage of my daughter, Nidhi has been performed with Deepak Jain, s/o Shri Devender Kumar Jain, R/o 1/218, Shri Ram Nagar, Sahdara, Delhi-32 on 11th October, 2002. After some time of marriage they used to give beating to my daughter and asked for money and articles. We gave them whatever we could. They tortured my daughter regularly. At the time of birth of son they took my daughter to the hospital where no facility was available and they also not present there. They took the whole jewellery and money from my daughter and gave beatings and thrown out of home. He himself left home on 25th July after gave beatings to her and went to his parents home and left her in rental home. On 13th of July I went to his home with my son and V.P. Jain (Nidhi‟s mama). After discussions he promised that he will come to our house on 14th but he did not come."

The grounds which have been raised by the petitioner are not

material for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the

respondents No.2 to 8 in the present facts and circumstances. The fact

that the respondents No. 2 to 8 had filed a complaint against the

petitioner which was later on withdrawn by them cannot be a ground

for cancellation of bail. Similarly filing of divorce petition by the

husband of the petitioner cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail of

the husband in the present facts and circumstances.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on AIR 1978

SC 179, Gurcharan Singh & Ors v. State and 1977 Crl.L.J.104, State of

Gujarat v. Hirasing Kesarising Solanki to contend that the anticipatory

bail granted to the respondents No.2 to 8 is liable to be cancelled. In

State of Gujarat (Supra) relied on by the petitioner the anticipatory bail

granted to the accused was cancelled because the Magistrate had not

considered the fact that the accused police inspector had snatched the

money with the help of his subordinates and had used force against the

victim and the Magistrate had not even considered the alleged sickness

on the basis of which the anticipatory bail was granted and thus the

learned Single Judge was of the view that the circumstances which were

not considered, were sufficient to decline anticipatory bail to the

accused and had cancelled the bail.

In contradistinction, in the present case the husband had filed a

complaint against the petitioner in which the petitioner had to appear

before the police authorities where a settlement was arrived at and on

account of some sort of understanding between the parties, the

respondents No.2 to 8 had withdrawn the complaint against the

petitioner. This will not be a sufficient ground to cancel the

anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 to 8. Similarly, ground

that the husband has filed a divorce petition against the petitioner, will

not be a ground for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to

respondents No.2 to 8. Even on the merits of the case the allegation

against the respondents No. 2 to 8 are very generic in the complaint

filed on behalf of petitioner by her father.

The judgment relied on by the petitioner, Gurcharan & Ors

(Supra) is also distinguishable as in the said case some police

personnels who had caused death of one Sunder by drowning him in

the Jamuna river pursuant to the conspiracy, were not first implicated

on the basis of six eye witnesses but later on in the course of further

investigation and on recording seven other witnesses they were got

implicated and the bail was cancelled. The statements which were made

subsequently revealed that the earlier statements absolving the accused

were made on account of pressure on them and in the circumstances

the bail granted to the accused was cancelled observing that some

relevant facts were not taken into consideration.

The case of the petitioner is distinguishable and in the totality of

facts and circumstances, there are no grounds to cancel the

anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 20th December,

2006 in FIR No.582/2006 Police Station Mansarovar Park under

Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. Therefore, the petition is without any merit

and it is, therefore, dismissed.

Dasti.

September 01, 2008                                  ANIL KUMAR, J.
„k‟