Delhi High Court
Vijender Sharma vs State on 5 November, 2009
Author: Mool Chand Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Bail Application Number 2012/2009
% Date of reserve : 30.10.2009
Date of decision: 05.11.2009
VIJENDER SHARMA ...PETITIONER
Through: Mr.Rakesh Tiku and Mr.Shailendra
Babbar, Advocates
Versus
STATE ...RESPONDENT
Through: Mr.Arvind K.Gupta, APP for the State
Mr.Pratap Singh, Advocate for the
complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be Yes
reported in the Digest?
MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
1. This order shall dispose of the bail application filed by the petitioner
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with
FIR No. 107/2009 under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police
Station Nihal Vihar.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner got
married to Smt.Darshana, complainant on 2.3.2006 as per Hindu rites and
ceremonies and during the marriage ceremony some presents and gifts,
according to the customs of parties, were exchanged between the bride and
bridegroom. It is also submitted that soon after the solemnization of
marriage, the complainant started treating the petitioner and his family
members with cruelty and had left the matrimonial house on 22.12.2008
without any reason and while leaving the matrimonial house, she took away
a number of articles with her. Thereafter, she lodged a false complaint
against the petitioner and his family members with the Crime against
Women Cell, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, where the petitioner offered to
reconcile with his wife. The first application filed by the petitioner for grant
of anticipatory bail was dismissed vide order dated 24.7.2009. It is also
submitted that since the petitioner was willing to return alleged dowry
articles to the wife/complainant, a suit bearing No. 96/09 was filed seeking
directions to receive articles from the petitioner and as counsel for
wife/complainant had no objection on deposit of articles with the SHO
Police Station Nihal Vihar, the order was passed accordingly. The
complainant filed a petition bearing No. CM(M) 931/2009 for quashing of
this order. The said petition was dismissed vide order dated 8.9.2009 and
while dismissing the aforesaid petition, both the parties were directed to
appear in person for conciliation on 24.9.2009. However, the complainant
intentionally did not appear before the court for mediated settlement. In
terms of the order dated 4.8.2009, the petitioner deposited the alleged dowry
articles with Police Station Nihal Vihar on 8.8.2009 vide seizure memo
dated 8.8.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a second application for grant
of anticipatory bail and during those proceedings, the petitioner paid a sum
of Rs. 31,000/- to the complainant. However, the said bail application was
dismissed vide order dated 5.10.2009. It is also submitted that the petitioner
is ready and willing for any kind of compromise to save his marriage and is
ready to co-operate for any kind of settlement. However, the complainant is
not willing to reconcile the matter. It is also submitted that the petitioner is
ready and willing to return the jewelry and gold jewelry articles weighing 47
grams were offered to return to the complainant. Apart from this, the
petitioner had also offered to return the silver jewelry articles weighing 60
grams besides two gold watches. It is also submitted that all the incidents
alleged by the complainant have taken place in Panchkula and not even a
single incident was committed within the jurisdiction of Delhi. It is also
submitted that no allegation of cruelty has been leveled against the
petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has strong roots in the
society and there is no likelihood of him absconding from the jurisdiction of
this court and that he undertakes to co-operate with the investigation as and
when directed and also undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or with
the witnesses. It is also submitted that no allegation of cruelty has been
leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner has not committed any
previous offence and even in the present FIR he has been falsely implicated.
3. Heard counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case.
The relevant portion of the order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the learned ASJ
dismissing second application moved by the petitioner for grant of
anticipatory bail is as under:-
"Taking into consideration the alleged incident of cruelty mentioned
in the complaint against the applicant which also include that once an
effort was allegedly made to set her on fire by keeping one burner of
the gas open and then sending her to prepare the tea and when she
lighted the burner, due to one burner which was already open, the
fire spread and her clothes caught fire, the applicant is the husband of
the complainant and this is second application for anticipatory bail,
there is no change in the circumstances which can entitle the
applicant to be enlarged on bail, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail is rejected."
4. However, in this order there is also a mention that no MLC was
prepared. This goes to show that the authenticity and admissibility of this
evidence is not free from doubt and would require evidence to be led during
the course of trial.
5. The best case of the complainant is that the jewelry worth 170 grams
was given in marriage. However, according to the petitioner besides having
returned other items, he is ready to return 47 grams of gold jewelry and 60
grams of silver jewelry besides two old watches. He has also paid a sum of
Rs. 31,000/- to the complainant under the orders of learned Singled Judge of
this Court. He is ready and willing for conciliation but it is the complainant
who has not cared to join the mediation proceedings.
6. Taking all these facts into consideration, I am of the view that the
petitioner is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I order
that the petitioner if arrested in connection with the present F.I.R., he shall
be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-
(rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer subject to
the conditions that the petitioner will return all the gold/silver jewelry
articles still in his possession to the complainant before the concerned SHO
on Tuesday i.e. 10.11.2009 at 11 am and the petitioner will deposit a sum of
Rs.1 lakh additionally with the Registrar General of this Court in the name
of the complainant, which amount shall be disbursed subject to the outcome
of the trial of this case. The petitioner will join investigation as and when
required and would not intimidate the witnesses.
7. Bail application stands disposed of. Pending applications also stand
disposed of.
MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
November 05, 2009
dc
