Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State on 25 August, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLICATION NO. 903/2009
Date of Decision : 25.8.2009
Viond Kumar ......Petitioner
Through: Counsel for the petitioner
(appearance not given).
Versus
STATE ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Bahl, APP for
the State and Mr. R. T.
Tarun, Adv. for the
complainant.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. This is an anticipatory bail application filed by the
petitioner for an offence under Sections 498A/406 IPC
registered vide FIR No. 96/2009 at P.S. Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case against the petitioner is
that he got married to the complainant almost 13 years ago
and from the wedlock the petitioner has two children. It is
alleged by the complainant that from the very inception of
marriage the petitioner started beating the complainant
and was subjecting her to immense atrocities after
consuming liquor. He would frequently threaten her that
he would leave her. Even the brother-in-law (Dewar) of the
complainant named Pradeep and her mother-in-law also
taunted her for getting the less dowry. The complainant's
parents with a view to ensure that her daughter is not
subjected to such atrocities had given dowry from time to
time. Even at the time of marriage they had given cash of
Rs.21,000/-, jewellery, cloths, utensils etc. and other
things worth Rs.70,000/-. The complainant had earlier
also lodged a report with the Crime against Women Cell
against her husband. The complaint is having all the
details as to how she was subjected to immense hardship
and atrocities with a view to demand dowry. The
complainant has also stated that her dowry articles have
not been returned and hence the aforesaid case was
registered against the petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as the learned counsel for the complainant apart from
learned APP. I have also gone through the record. The
learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of
anticipatory bail on the ground that the petitioner has been
cooperating with the Investigating Officer, and therefore,
the interim protection which has been granted to him may
be made absolute. As against this, the learned APP has
vehemently opposed the request for grant of bail on the
ground that the petitioner is working as a constable in
Delhi Police and has become law unto himself. Previously
also he had subjected his wife, the complainant to immense
atrocities with a view to demand dowry. The complainant
had lodged a report with the Crime against Women Cell on
two occasions when the petitioner had given in writing on
15.02.2001 and 26.4.2001 that he will not subject the
complainant to any kind of harassment and he would take
his wife/complainant to home, but despite this the same
thing has been repeated again.
4. I have considered the submissions of the respective
sides. The petitioner being a constable in Delhi Police
instead of being law abiding citizen has shown delinquent
proclivities. He in the past have also subjected the
complainant to a great deal of harassment because of
which the complaint was made to the Crime against
Women Cell. The petitioner had given in writing that he
would not harass the wife/complainant, but all in vain.
The dowry articles have also not been returned, therefore,
in my view the petitioner does not deserve being enlarged
on anticipatory bail, in case, the petitioner is enlarged on
anticipatory bail he will tamper with the evidence and
further get emboldened to hamper the investigation.
5. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the bail
application of the petitioner is rejected.
V.K. SHALI, J.
AUGUST 25, 2009
KP
