Sh.Rohtash Sharma & Other vs State
2008 Latest Caselaw 1547 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                Bail Appl. No.2011/2007

%                            Date of Decision: 04.09.2008

Sh.Rohtash Sharma & Others                                  .... Petitioners

                           Through Mr.Narinder Kumar Saraswat, Advocate

                                       Versus

State                                                       .... Respondent

                           Through Mr.Amit Sharma, APP for the State.
                                   Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the
                                   respondent No.2.
                                   SI Narsingh, P.S.Dabri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.      Whether reporters of Local papers may be
        allowed to see the judgment?
2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?
3.      Whether the judgment should be reported in
        the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

1. The petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law

(Jeth - elder brother of the husband) and the husband, Sh. Hari Om,

who seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure

Code in an FIR registered pursuant to the complaint filed by the

daughter-in-law under section 498 A read with other provisions of law.

2. The father-in-law is an aged person and a senior employee of the

Railways, serving as Shuntman; mother-in-law is a house wife allegedly

not keeping good health and is alleged to remain hospitalized and is

under continuous treatment; Jeth (elder brother of the husband) is

serving in Sugar Mills in Kinoni District and the husband is a soldier.

3. The petitioners have contended that the marriage between the

petitioner no. 4 and the complainant was love/choice marriage although

arranged by family men socially. There is no issue from the marriage

between the petitioner No.4 and the respondent No. 2. Respondent

No.2 is stated to have diploma in cutting, tailoring and embroidery. It is

alleged that after the marriage, the petitioner No.4/husband could not

keep the respondent No.2 with him as he was not posted at family

station and consequently he wanted to keep respondent no. 2 with his

parents which was not acceptable to the respondent no.2. The

respondent no.2 used to instigate the petitioner no. 4/ husband to live

separately with her. The petitioner No.4/husband had, therefore, got

permission from the Army Officer and had taken the

complainant/respondent no. 2 to Jodhpur. However, she is alleged to

have misbehaved and abused him and in a fit of anger had taken some

substance which was injurious to her health. An allegation of

respondent no. 2/ wife thrashing the mother-in-law on 07.03.2005 has

also been made.

4. On disputes occurring between the parties as they could not live

together, a list of articles given in the marriage is alleged to have been

prepared which was duly signed by the parties. However, it is alleged

that on 23.02.2007 when petitioner no. 4 was on duty, respondent no.2

alongwith her mother and brother removed Rs.25,000/- cash, a golden

chain of two tolas, golden kara, paijeb and valuable sarees and left the

house. Since the respondent no.2/complainant had left the

matrimonial home, the petitioner no.4, therefore, filed a petition for

divorce which is pending in the Court at Meerut.

5. It is contended that the petitioners are respectful persons and

since the marriage between the petitioner no. 4 and respondent no. 2

has not been successful, the husband/petitioner no. 4 and other

petitioners are being implicated by making false allegation regarding the

demand of dowry. It is also contended that there cannot be any

apprehension of petitioners running away or trying to influence any of

the witnesses. The petitioners have also contended that they will fully

cooperate with the investigating agency and join the investigation as

and when directed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also

relied on 2003(1) JCC 31, Roshan Lal Nimesh and Another v. State of

N.C.T. of Delhi and 1997 JCC 552, Mahesh Naithani v. The State. The

elder brother of petitioner no. 4/husband and father-in-law and

mother-in-law have been roped in to cause harassment to them and

even petitioner no. 4 is being pressurized by making false allegations

and averments against him and in case the petitioner no. 4 is arrested,

he may lose his employment with the Indian Army.

5. The averments made on behalf of respondents are that not only

the father-in-law, mother-in-law and the husband's elder brother but

elder brother's wife and the sisters who are living at Old Faridabad had

also been roped in and it has been alleged that they had also demanded

the dowry articles. The other allegations made are that the respondent

no. 2/ complainant was not allowed to touch the utensils and that she

was ill-treated. The learned counsel for the respondent

no.2/complainant has contended that during the fight between

petitioner no. 4 and respondent no. 2, the complainant had taken some

substance which was poisonous, however, no report was made to the

police nor anything has been produced to show prima facie that any

such incidence had taken place. The respondent no. 2/complainant,

however, admitted that when the tablets were taken by her, the

petitioner no. 4/ husband has got her admitted to a private hospital.

From the allegations made in the complaint it also appears that the

expenses for the treatment were borne by the husband.

6. It is also admitted that articles have been given by the petitioners

for which the receipt dated 26.08.2007 was executed. The contention of

the petitioners are that all the articles were either taken away by the

respondent No.2/complainant or were returned whereas the allegation

of the complainant is that the jewellery articles have not been returned.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances and the fact that

petitioner no.1/father-in-law is employed in Railways, mother-in-law is

not keeping well and the elder brother is employed at a different place

and the husband is a Sepoy in Army, and the allegations made in the

complaint and the counter allegations made against the

complainant/respondent No.2 and the dowry articles, which according

to respondent no. 2 are not all the articles, have been returned, it is a

fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Consequently the

petition is allowed and in case of arrest, petitioners be released on bail

on their executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with

one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigation

Officer/Arresting Officer. The petitioners shall appear before the

Investigating Officer as and when directed by him and shall not try to

influence any of the witnesses in any manner.

With these directions, the petition is disposed of.

Dasti.

September 04, 2008                                       ANIL KUMAR, J.
akn