Shabana vs Mohd. Irfan & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 849 Del

              *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                         Date of Reserve: 27th January, 2011

                                Date of Order: February, 2011

                                   + Crl. MC No.3599 /2009
%                                                                             11.02.2011
        Shabana                                                      ...Petitioner

        Versus

        Mohd. Irfan & Anr.                                           ...Respondents

Counsels:

Mr. S.D. Ansari and Mr. G.D. Ahmed for petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar for respondent.


        JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.      Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.      Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


                                             ORDER

1. This application under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been

preferred by the petitioner/complainant who is wife of the respondent no.1 for

cancellation of bail granted by this Court vide order dated 6th September 2007. The

husband/ respondent no.1 herein is involved in a case under Section 498A/406/34 IPC

and he was granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The bail order shows that the parties

had three children and out of three children, two children were with the husband, one of

them was a handicapped child, while one child was with the wife/ complainant/ petitioner.

It was also noted by this Court that all the dowry articles had been received by the

complainant and she had executed an affidavit to that effect. This Court also directed

that the husband who was working as an Assistant to a Homeopathic doctor and earning

Rs.3500/- per month, shall continue to pay Rs.500/- to the wife. The Court granted

Crl.MC 3599/2009 Page 1 Of 2 anticipatory bail to the respondent no.1 herein.

2. The cancellation of anticipatory bail is sought on the ground that she has learnt

that the police has scraped charge under Section 406 IPC qua respondent no.1 and on

the ground that respondent no.1 had misled the court that two of the children were with

him and it was also wrongly represented that all dowry articles had been returned.

3. This petition for cancellation of bail seems to be a counterblast to the petition filed

by the husband and other accused persons before this Court for quashing of FIR. This

Court granted anticipatory bail to the husband/ respondent no.1 for cogent and just

grounds. I find no ground to cancel the bail granted to respondent no.1. The contention

raised by the counsel for the petitioner/wife that the husband misled the trial court has no

force. The petition is hereby dismissed.

February 11, 2011                                          SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd




Crl.MC 3599/2009                                                                     Page 2 Of 2