Delhi High Court
Sanjay Gupta vs State Nct Of Delhi on 19 August, 2013
Author: Sunita Gupta
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 402/2013
SANJAY GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Mr.
Vaibhav Sharma and Ms.
Sridevi, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the
State with SI Vinit Malik, PS
Bindapur.
Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate for
complainant with complainant
in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
ORDER
% 19.08.2013
1. This is an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C moved by the petitioner
for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner got married with the complainant on 19.04.2000. After the
marriage, the spouses started residing at House No.2800-B, First
Floor, Gali No.207, Vishram Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi, the parental
house of the petitioner as petitioner is the only son of his parents. In
the year 2004, upon the complainant's insistence, the petitioner and
complainant started residing separately at the second floor of the
aforesaid premises. In February, 2009 the mother of the complainant
was in need of some money and proposed to sell the second floor of
premises No.RZ-62, Param Puri, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. The
petitioner's mother purchased the said property and petitioner also
purchased the roof rights of the said property, as per the desire of the
complainant, in her name. However, immediately after the said
purchase, the complaint insisted and pressurised the petitioner to shift
along with her to the second floor of the purchased property. The
petitioner had to yield to the demand of the complainant and the
spouses shifted to the second floor of Uttam Nagar property with all
their belongings.
3. The spouses got a male child and the petitioner thought that the
onset of the child would usher in an era of happiness but then after a
few days the child was diagnosed with disorder of Down Syndrome.
The complainant turned the petitioner and the child out of the house
in February, 2011 and ever since then, the petitioner along with her
child has been residing at his parental house. The complainant had
earlier filed a complaint with CAW Cell Dwarka on 01.10.201 and
again on 28.12.2011, the complainant filed a complaint with CAW
Cell, Dwarka. The allegations levelled in the second complaint are
after thought as almost all the averments made in the complaint are
absent in the first complaint dated 01.10.2010. These allegations do
pertain to a period prior to 01.10.2010.
4. Ms. Sumitra Devi, mother of the complainant filed a suit for
declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner and his
parents in relation to the residential premises at RZ-62, Uttam Nagar.
The complainant has also filed a petition under the provisions of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner
has served the complainant with a legal notice for return of his
personal belongings. It was submitted that no articles belonging to
the complainant is lying with the petitioner or his family members
inasmuch as when the legal notice was served upon the complainant
for return of articles lying at Uttam Nagar, she sent a reply claiming
that all these articles belonged to her and therefore she is not liable to
return the same. It was alleged by the complainant that a car was
given in dowry. However the same is factually incorrect inasmuch as
the car was purchased by father of the complainant in the name of his
partnership firm, M/s S.K. Embroidery and he himself sold the same
as far back as on 01.03.2007. The petitioner has roots in the society;
he has joined the investigation. There are no chances of his
absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, as such he be
released on bail.
5. The application is opposed by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant
on the ground that a sum of Rs.20 lakhs was incurred in the marriage.
A Santro car was also given. Since the very beginning of marriage,
her husband and in-laws used to harass and taunt her for brining less
dowry. On 12.03.2008, there was altercation between her and her
husband. In the meantime her in-laws also came. Her husband
pushed her on the stairs as a result of which she fell down and
sustained injuries. She was admitted in Maharaja Agarsen Hospital.
In the month of February 2009, her husband asked her father to
purchase a house in the name of his mother, Smt. Omwati but he was
not in a position to purchase a house. Accordingly, he persuaded her
mother to transfer the house which was in her name in the name of
her mother-in-law, Smt. Omwati on 26.2.2009. Thereafter petitioner
deserted her and started living with his parents.
6. On 03.09.2010 she was sent back to her parents house by her
husband as he was badly in need of Rs. 5 lakhs and hence asked her
to demand from her father a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. Her father expressed
his inability but paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to her husband. Again
demand of Rs.4 lakhs was made for purchase of car which father of
complainant was unable to fulfil. On 23.12.2011, complainant had
gone to her parent's house and in her absence her husband came to
the house at Parampuri, Uttam Nagar and took out all articles lying
the said house and put the same in a tempo. As he was about to go
away from there, in the meantime, one of the neighbours informed her
about the incident and she came back and with the help of police got
the articles replaced in the house. Dowry articles are yet to be
recovered; custodial interrogation is required, as such bail application
was opposed. However, during the course of arguments it was
submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that bills of Rs. 2
lakhs submitted by the complainant has been verified. The house was
also transferred in the name of the mother of the petitioner for which
civil suit is pending, as such the petitioner be put to terms in case he
is released on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
without prejudice to his rights, on merits of the case, he is ready to
deposit some amount. Under the circumstances it is ordered that
without prejudice to the rights of the parties, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs be
deposited by way of FDR in the name of Registrar General of this
Court which will be subject to the decision of the case. Subject to
deposit of this amount, it is ordered that in the event of his arrest:
(i) Petitioner be admitted to bail on his executing personal bond
in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only)
with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned I.O./SHO.
(ii) He shall join the investigation as and when called for by the
I.O.
(iii) He shall furnish his address as well as his mobile number to
the Investigating Officer.
(iv) He shall not threaten or coerce any prosecution witness.
Application stands disposed of.
SUNITA GUPTA, J
AUGUST 19, 2013
as
