Harkishan vs State
2008 Latest Caselaw 1568 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           Bail Appl. No.1094/2008

%                         Date of Decision: 05.09.2008
Harkishan                                                .... Petitioner

                          Through Mr.Rono Mohanty, Advocate

                                   Versus

State                                                    .... Respondent

                          Through Mr.Amit Sharma, APP for the State.
                                  Mr.P.S.Tomar, Advocate for the
                                  complainant along with complainant in
                                  person.
                                  SI Suresh Chand.
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.

*

This is a petition under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code

seeking anticipatory bail. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a

Government servant aged about 40 years and he had been residing

separately and not concerned with the dispute between the husband

and wife. The petitioner has also produced the copy of the ration card

reflecting that he had been residing separately. By order dated 31st

March, 2008 before the Sessions Judge it was stated that whatsoever

articles of the respondent No.2/applicant are with the petitioner, be

returned by him and consequently the matter was listed on 22nd April,

2008.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the

seizure memo dated 9th April, 2008 was prepared stipulating that 11

articles were returned by the petitioner and taken by police as the

complainant had declined to take them. Despite the return of the

articles by the petitioner the application for anticipatory bail was

dismissed by the Sessions Judge by order dated 22nd April, 2008 on the

ground that there is no change in the circumstances for grant of

anticipatory bail.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2/applicant on

instructions from the complainant states that the articles which has

been returned are not her articles and she is not ready to accept them.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no other

articles.

It is also contended that the complainant had implicated eight

members including the husband out of which only the petitioner has

not been granted bail and others are on bail. The fact that other family

members have been released on bail has not been denied. This Court

had also granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to

his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one

surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

The learned counsel for the complainant contends that the

petitioner had alleged that the children of the complainant are not

fathered by his brother that is the husband of the complainant. In a

complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code the petitioner

cannot be denied bail even if such an allegation has been made by the

petitioner which is, however, denied by him.

In the totality of facts and circumstances, the petition is to be

allowed. Consequently, in the event of his arrest the petitioner be

released on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with

one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting

Officer/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall appear before the

Investigating Officer as and when directed by him and shall not

influence any of the witnesses in any manner.

Petition is disposed of.

Dasti.

September 05, 2008                                 ANIL KUMAR, J.
'K'