Manish Kapoor vs State
2009 Latest Caselaw 3966 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    BAIL APPLICATION NO.611/2009

                                         Reserved on : 16.9.2009
                                     Date of Decision : 25.9.2009

MANISH KAPOOR                                   ......Petitioner
                               Through:   Mr.Rakesh     Wadhwa,
                                          Advocate

                               Versus

STATE                                           ...... Respondents
                               Through:   Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP
                                          for the State.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment?                              NO
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.

1. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail by the

petitioner herein in FIR No.20/2009 u/s 406/498A/34 IPC

registered at CWC Nanakpura.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well

as the learned APP for the State and have gone through the

record.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner

was married to the complainant on 10.11.2003 and from

the said wedlock, they were blessed with a female child on

01.2.2008. It is alleged by the complainant that right from

inception of marriage, she was subjected to demand of

dowry which resulted in physical and mental cruelty. It is

alleged by her that she was thrown from her matrimonial

home and all her efforts to reconcile also did not to yield in

any result.

4. In the complaint not only the allegations were made against

the present petitioner/husband but allegations were also

levelled against almost the entire family of the petitioner

including his parents, sister, sister in law, etc. The entire

family applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court

of ASJ which prayer was accepted but except that all the

relatives of the petitioner were granted anticipatory bail

except the petitioner.

5. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the anticipatory bail

application, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

During the course of pendency of the present petition for

grant of bail, the petitioner had volunteered to give a sum

of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant by way of two demand

drafts on 2.4.2009 apart from the fact that he had

conceded that he would be giving a consolidated sum of

Rs.5,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.4.2008. The aforesaid

amount of Rs.60,000/- was towards the payment of

maintenance. This amount was paid by the petitioner in

order to show his bonafides.

6. On 8.7.2009, the petitioner had further paid a sum of

Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

7. The matter was referred to the mediation to bring about the

reconciliation between the parties as the petitioner had filed

a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the

complainant was also not keen to part company with the

petitioner. However, the mediation could not bring about

the reconciliation between the parties and the petitioner

had during the pendency of the proceedings offered to pay a

sum of Rs.4 lacs towards full and final settlement of the

entire claim of permanent alimony, maintenance etc. to the

complainant and his child. This was not acceptable to the

complainant.

8. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended

that since all the five family members against whom the

allegations have been levelled have been enlarged on

anticipatory bail, there is no reason to deny the said benefit

to the petitioner who has not misused the interim

protection granted to him by this Court. Further in order

to show his bonafides, he has not only returned the dowry

articles which were given to the complainant by her parents

and the family of the petitioner but he had also sincerely

made offer to bring about the reconciliation which failed to

yield any result.

9. It was contended by counsel for the petitioner that merely

because the allegations have been levelled against the

petitioner, he should not be denied the bail as a punitive

measure and if at all he is found guilty after the trial he will

face the consequence of the same.

10. Learned counsel for the complainant admitted that though

the dowry articles have been returned but it was contended

that the jewellery have still not been returned to her. The

learned APP has contended that the custodial interrogation

may be necessary for effecting the recovery of the jewellery

articles and therefore, the benefit of anticipatory bail

should not be given to the petitioner.

11. Keeping in view the fact that the dowry articles though not

consisting of jewellery have been returned by the petitioner

and the fact that he has voluntarily agreed to pay a sum of

Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance of his infant

child and the fact that he is cooperating with the

investigation, I feel that there is no compelling reason to

deny him the benefit of anticipatory bail, as has been

extended to other family members.

12. I, therefore, direct that the petitioner in the event of his

arrest shall be released on bail on personal bond in the

sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to

the satisfaction of the IO/SHO in the event of his arrest.

The petitioner shall however, not try to influence the

witnesses or extent threats either to the complainant or to

her parents or in any manner impede the investigation.

13. The petitioner has voluntarily agreed to pay a sum of

Rs.5,000/- by way of maintenance for his own infant child

which I hope and trust, he would continue to do so even

after passing of this order till the time the parties obtain

appropriate order or get the same modified from the

competent Court of law.

14. It is also directed that the petitioner shall clear the entire

arrears of maintenance payable at the aforesaid rate till

30.9.2009 within 15 days from today and continue to pay

for succeeding English Calendar month on or before 7th of

each of the following English Calendar month. The

petitioner shall obtain a regular bail from a Competent

Court of law within 90 days from today.

14. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2009 RN