Amit Shukla vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 887 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        BAIL APPLN. 86/2011

                                                 Decided on: 14.02.2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
AMIT SHUKLA                                                ..... Petitioner
                               Through: Ms. Seema Gulati, Advocate with
                               Mr. Sugam Puri and Ms. Kiran Sinha, Advs.

                   versus

STATE                                                      ..... Respondent
                               Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State
                               with IO/SI Rajni Chopra, CAW Cell, Nanakpura.
                               Mr. Nisheeth Anand, Advocate with the
                               complainant, Ms. Richa Shukla in person.

CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may          No
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?         No

     3. Whether the judgment should be                 No
        reported in the Digest?


HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438

read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR

No.51/2008 lodged under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered with Police

Station: Crime against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi.

2. Counsel for the petitioner states that after lodging of the

aforesaid FIR by the complainant, Ms. Richa Shukla, (wife of the petitioner)

against her husband, the petitioner and the members of his family on

05.08.2008, a petition for grant of anticipatory bail preferred by the

petitioner in this Court, registered as BAIL APPLN. 2276/2008, was allowed

vide order dated 28.10.2009 on the conditions as laid down in the said

order. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in the present

case, charge-sheet was filed on 12.05.2010, whereunder it was opined that

as per the documents on the record, offence under Section 313 IPC was not

attracted. However, the offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC were

found to be attracted. Vide order dated 16.07.2010, the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate arrived at a conclusion that the commission of

offence under Section 313 Cr.PC was also disclosed from the charge-sheet

and cognizance of the aforesaid offence was taken and summons were

issued to the accused persons, including the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by

the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition, which was

disposed of vide order dated 21.12.2010 on the point of maintainability. It

is stated that now the matter is to be committed to the Sessions Court.

3. The petitioner filed another application before the learned ASJ,

seeking anticipatory bail on account of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate

taking cognizance of the offence under Section 313 IPC, however, the same

was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

Hence, the present bail application has been filed by the petitioner. Learned

counsel for the petitioner states that after passing of the order dated

28.10.2009 granting anticipatory bail to him, the petitioner has not violated

any of the terms and conditions of bail as imposed in the aforesaid order.

She further states that her client is also willing to make a further payment of

`2.5 lacs to the complainant without prejudice to his rights and contentions

and subject to grant of two installments for making the payment. She also

places reliance on a judgment in the case of Puran Mal Man & Anr. vs. The

State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2008 (1) JCC 201 to submit that bail

should be granted where subsequently, cognizance has been taken of

offence under Section 313 IPC.

4. Though the present petition for anticipatory bail is vehemently

opposed by the counsel for the complainant by stating that a perusal of the

charge-sheet itself indicates that the petitioner is responsible for the

termination of the pregnancy of the complainant on three occasions, the

aforesaid aspect of the matter cannot be the subject matter of detailed

consideration in the present petition as there is already an order dated

16.07.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, taking

cognizance of the aforesaid offence. As far as the submissions of the

learned APP for the State are concerned, it is not denied by him that all the

aforesaid facts were placed before the Court seized of the earlier bail

application filed by the petitioner and only after considering the said facts

did the order dated 28.10.2009 came to be passed, granting anticipatory

bail to the petitioner.

5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the

present petition is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the

petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond

in the sum of `50,000/-, with one surety of the like amount to the

satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/SHO. It is made clear that the

petitioner shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial

court nor shall he interfere with or try to influence any witness. It is further

clarified that the payment of `2.5 lacs that the petitioner has offered to pay

to the complainant is without prejudice to his rights and contention, and the

same shall be paid by him to the complainant in two equal installments of

`1.25 lacs each within a period of six weeks.

6. The petition is disposed of.

DASTI.

                                                           (HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 14, 2011                                             JUDGE
rkb