Mayank Pathak vs The State
2014 Latest Caselaw 5958 Del

$~
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                         Date of Decision: 19th November, 2014
+    BAIL APPLN. 1947/2014
     MAYANK PATHAK                                             ..... Petitioner
                     Through :           Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
                                         Mr.Bhagat Sharma, Advocate along
                                         with the petitioner (in JC)

                             versus

     THE STATE                                                ..... Respondent
                             Through :   Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for State
                                         Mr. Sunil K. Mittal and Mr. Anshul
                                         Mittal, Advocates for complainant


     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
                                      JUDGMENT

: SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. By virtue of this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the

petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 386/2013 u/s

498A/313/406/34 IPC registered with Police Station Rani Bagh,

District North West.

2. It is submitted by Sh. Ramesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for

the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody for the last 90 days. The

petitioner never raised any demand of dowry. The complainant used

to pressurise the petitioner to purchase his own house in Delhi or to

get the property bearing No. BP-143, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi

transferred in her favour. The present criminal proceedings is a

dishonest and fraudulent design on the part of the complainant to

achieve her illegal motive and design. On 6 th February, 2013, the

complainant had visited Dr. Krishna Sangwan at Rohtak and

ultrasound report of the complainant was OK and on 10 th February,

2013, the ultrasound was perfect. So there is no question of causing

any bleeding. Although it is alleged that the abortion took place on

10th February, 2014 but the documents placed on record show that till

23rd February, 2014, everything was normal. No document has been

filed when abortion took place. It is yet to be seen whether the offence

under Section 312/313 is made out or not. Under the circumstances,

the petitioner cannot be kept in jail for an indefinite period. As such,

he be released on bail.

3. The application is vehemently opposed by Ms. Ritu Gauba,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State duly assisted by Sh.

Sunil K. Mittal, Advocate for the complainant. It was submitted that

the petitioner and his family members made several demands and

father of the complainant gave around Rs. 25 lacs to them on different

dates pursuant to the demand. On 6th February, 2013, on the occasion

of birthday of the petitioner, he demanded i-phone from the

complainant and when she failed to give the same, she was given

beatings causing bleeding resulting in miscarriage. It was further

submitted that all the stridhan articles are lying with the petitioner and

despite the fact the efforts were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court also

where the anticipatory bail application was filed by the petitioner, he

remained adamant and did not return any of the articles. It was further

submitted by the counsel for the complainant that the police officials

are colluding with the family members of the petitioner inasmuch as

despite serious allegations against the father, mother and sister of the

petitioner, no effort is being made to arrest them.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

5. As per the averments made in the FIR, the complainant was

married to the petitioner on 6th May, 2011. Dowry was given by the

parents of the complainant as per their status. The petitioner asked

the father of the complainant to arrange for the honey moon trip as he

faced some financial difficulty. On 19th May, 2011 on the occasion of

petitioner's father's birthday, a RADO watch was demanded. On

complainant's mother's birthday, the petitioner refused to take her to

her parents' house. Subsequently on various occasions like Nirjala

Akadashi, silver utensils and other articles were given which were not

liked by the petitioner and his family members. There was illegal

demand on the birthday of mother-in-law of the complainant. On the

birthday of complainant, her father arranged a party when the

petitioner slapped her in the presence of her parents as they did not

give him any valuable gold article. Money was demanded for

celebration of festival of Lohri and thereafter on husband's birthday.

Complainant's father arranged a trip to Goa, however, the petitioner

was still not satisfied and beat her mercilessly. On 19 th May, 2012 the

complainant came back to her parental home and filed a complaint

against the petitioner and others vide DD No.62B dated 24th May,

2012 at Police Station Rani Bagh. However, on the promise made by

the petitioner and his family members not to harass the complainant,

she joined matrimonial home on 3rd July, 2012. However, things did

not improve. The complainant was beaten on the Dushehra festival.

The demand of Rs.25 lacs was made as the petitioner and his family

wanted to clear their dues of the market. When the complainant

refused to get such a huge amount from her father, her father-in-law

started beating her in the presence of the petitioner and mother-in-law.

Thereafter on 27th November, 2012, the father of the complainant paid

a sum of Rs.25 lacs to her father-in-law in the presence of her

husband. Finally on the pretext of shifting, the complainant was

asked to take a room on rent at Rohtak so as to clear her MD

Examination. At that time, all her articles and jewellery were kept by

the petitioner and his family members. While she was at Rohtak, her

husband demanded i-phone on his birthday on 6th February, 2013 and

when she failed to give the same, she was beaten due to which she

started bleeding and could not save her pregnancy. As per the

medical record, on 6th February, 2013, complainant visited Dr.

Krishna Sangwan at Rohtak due to bleeding and threatened abortion.

6. Needless to say, the allegations are very serious in nature.

Record reveals that the petitioner filed application for grant of

anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by learned MM, Sessions

Judge as well as the High Court. The petitioner also filed Special

Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court and a perusal of the

order dated 21st July, 2014, goes to show that efforts were made to

reconcile the parties for an amicable settlement of the disputes but the

same met with failure mainly due to denial and refusal of the

petitioner and his family to return the complainant's stridhan, which

according to the complainant, is valued more than Rs.50 lacs. The

Special Leave Petition was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner

surrendered before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. His police

remand was taken and at that time also only few articles comprising

of seven pieces of silver bowls, one window AC, 5 male suit lengths,

two pieces of jacket and one piece of umbrella were recovered.

Charge sheet has been filed before the learned Trial Court but the

charge has not yet been framed. It is yet to be seen whether the

allegations attract the provisions of Section 312/313 IPC or not.

7. Under the circumstances, at this stage, the petitioner is not

entitled to be released on bail.

8. The application is dismissed.

It is, however, made clear that nothing stated herein shall

tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.

(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE NOVEMBER 19, 2014 rs