Delhi High Court
Sumit Sharma vs State on 2 December, 2013
Author: Sunita Gupta
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DATE OF DECISION: 02nd DECEMBER, 2013
+ BAIL APPLN. 1788/2013
SUMIT SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Kapoor , Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the
State with ASI Ravi Shankar, PS
Tilak Nagar.
WITH
+ BAIL APPLN. 1789/2013
AMIT SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Kapoor , Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the
State with ASI Ravi Shankar, PS
Tilak Nagar.
AND
+ BAIL APPLN. 1791/2013
VEENA SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Kapoor , Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the
State with ASI Ravi Shankar, PS
Tilak Nagar.
Bail Appln.Nos.1788-1791/2013 Page 1 of 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
JUDGMENT
: SUNITA GUPTA, J.
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of bail application Nos.
1788/2013, 1789/2013 and 1791/2013 as all the bail applications
have been filed in case FIR No.288/2013 u/s 354/509/323/34 IPC,
P.S. Tilak Nagar for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
2. In Bail Application No.1788/2013, the applicant is the brother-in-
law of the complainant; in Bail Application No.1789/2013, the
applicant is the husband of the complainant and in Bail Application
No.1791/2013, the applicant is the mother-in-law of the
complainant. FIR in the instant case was registered on the
statement of Poonam Sharma wherein she stated that she had filed
a case u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act which is pending in the
Court of learned M.M wherein she has claimed her entitlement to
live in House No.5A/16, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The learned
M.M passed an interim order in her favour and the same was
continued till 29.05.2013. Her in-laws continuously tried to throw
her out from the house. On 28.05.2013, when she returned from
her job, her mother-in-law, husband and brother-in-law started
using filthy language against her; they all gave her beatings with
danda; her husband and mother-in-law pulled her hair; her brother-
in-law caught hold of her and tried to drag her towards him and
when she protested, he slapped her. She rang up 100 No. and then
went to police station. She was taken to Deen Dayal Upadhyay
hospital where she was medically examined. She received stitches
on her head; she prayed for action against her husband, mother-in-
law and brother-in-law.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
complainant got married to Amit Sharma on 19.11.2003. Out of
the wedlock, a female child was born on 26.07.2005. After
solemnisation of marriage, the complainant used to harass the
family members on one pretext or the other and insisted for transfer
of the property in her name. Thereafter, she left the matrimonial
home with threats of lodging a false complaint against them. She
made a complaint before CAW Cell but nothing substantial was
found against the petitioners, as such, the complaint was consigned
to record. She filed frivolous suit for permanent injunction against
her husband and mother-in-law for restraining them from selling
the property. When the written statement was filed, she withdrew
the suit. Thereafter she filed another false complaint u/s 12 of
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is pending. On 30.05.2013,
she filed a false complaint against the petitioners. An application
for grant of anticipatory bail was filed and protection was granted
directing the SHO to serve 15 days notice prior to the arrest of the
petitioners. Thereafter another FIR was got registered vide FIR
No.336/13 dated 29.06.2013 u/s 341/32/34/IPC and application for
grant of anticipatory bail was moved before the High Court.
Directions were given to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs to the
complainant. It is submitted that the complainant is threatening the
petitioners that she will get them involved in false criminal cases if
her demands are not met. As per the directions of this Court, a sum
of Rs. 3 lakhs has already been paid. The petitioners have joined
investigation, as such they be released on bail.
4. Application is opposed by learned APP for the State on the ground
that the petitioners abused the complainant and gave her beatings.
The statement made by her before the police was reiterated in her
statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C; she was medically examined, as such the
petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.
5. Keeping in view the fact that, in pursuance to the directions given
by this Court in another application for grant of anticipatory bail
moved by the petitioners, direction was given to pay a sum of Rs. 3
lakhs to the complainant which has been complied with; as per the
MLC , injured was discharged from the hospital on the same day
and injuries have been opined to be simple coupled with the fact
that as per the averments made in the petition, initial complaint
made to CAW Cell was withdrawn by the complainant; thereafter
civil suit was also withdrawn after petitioners filed the written
statement, as such, keeping in view the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is ordered that in the event of their
arrest:-
(i) Petitioners be admitted to bail on their executing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees Ten Thousand
only) with one surety each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the concerned I.O./SHO;
(ii) they shall join investigation as and when called for by the
I.O.
(iii) they shall furnish their address as well as their mobile
numbers to the Investigating Officer.
(iv) they shall not threaten or coerce any prosecution witness
including complainant.
The petitions are accordingly disposed of. Copy of this
order be given dasti under the signature of Court Master.
SUNITA GUPTA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 02, 2013
as
