Ashim Trehan vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2009 Latest Caselaw 3979 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    BAIL APPLICATION NO. 972/2009

                                          Reserved on : 16.09.2009
                                      Date of Decision : 25.09.2009

Ashim Trehan                                       ......Petitioner
                                Through:     Ms.Kamna        Vohra,
                                             Advocate.

                                 Versus

State (NCT of Delhi)                              ...... Respondent
                                Through:     Mr. Pawan Bahl, APP

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 filed by the petitioner for grant of

anticipatory bail in FIR No. 48/2009 under Section

498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. CWC Nanakpura, New

Delhi. The allegations against the petitioner are that the

wife of the petitioner had got a complaint lodged on 8th

April, 2009 that is approximately a year after her marriage,

complaining about the harassment by her husband and in

laws by demanding dowry. It has been alleged that the

petitioner and his other family members used to demand

cash and costly items like car and they also used to taunt

her for petty things. On the basis of the complaint the FIR

was registered. The application for grant of anticipatory

bail by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge

was rejected vide order dated 2nd May, 2009, although by

the same order the other accused persons namely Jugal

Kishore, Smt. Darshana, Vajant Trehan, Anju Trehan and

Vikran Trehan were directed to be released on a personal

bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in the

like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO in the event

of their arrest.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record. The matter was also sent to the

Mediation and Conciliation Centre for the purpose of

exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement between

the parties, however, the same did not yield any result.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant had

contended that all the dowry articles are yet to be returned

especially the jewellery items and therefore, the petitioner

may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

4. Merely because the petitioner has not returned the dowry

articles to the respondent/complainant cannot be made as

a ground for denying the benefit of bail when the very

articles of dowry including the jewellery are in dispute.

There are allegations and counter allegations regarding the

existence and the return of dowry articles between the

parties.

5. As most of the relatives of the petitioner have already been

enlarged on bail, I feel that this is a fit case where the

petitioner should also be enlarged on bail on the same

terms and conditions as were laid down in the case of other

accused persons. I, accordingly direct that the petitioner

be also released on anticipatory bail in the event of his

arrest by furnishing of personal bond in the sum of

Rs.25,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the

IO/SHO concerned. However, the bail is granted to the

petitioner subject to the following conditions:

(a) He shall join the investigation as and when he is

called upon to do so.

(b) He shall not approach the respondent/complainant or

any other witnesses and he will not tamper with the

evidence.

(c) The petitioner shall not leave the country without the

permission of the Court.

6. For the reasons mentioned above, the bail application of

the petitioner is allowed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2009 KP