Deepak Kumar vs State
2015 Latest Caselaw 9085 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                            Date of hearing and order : December 07, 2015

+     BAIL APPLN. 2577/2014

      DEEPAK KUMAR                                       ..... Petitioner
                  Through:             Mr.Satish Tamta, Advocate.


                         versus

      STATE                                               ..... Respondent
                         Through:      Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
                                       Public Prosecutor for the State
                                       Ms.Manjeet Kaur, Advocate for the
                                       Complainant.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                    ORDER

P.S.TEJI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner herein is the husband of the complainant - Preeti

Shokeen and the marriage between them was solemnised on 3rd

February 2001. The complainant has alleged in her complaint that her

husband and her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry even at the

time of marriage and she was being tortured on account of demand of

dowry. It is also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner herein and

his parents demanded Rs.5 lacs from her on the pretext of expanding

their business. Not only this, it is also alleged that on two occasions

the petitioner even tried to strangulate her and she was compelled to

give Rs.2 lacs to the petitioner in order to save her married life.

2. On the recommendation of the CAW Cell, the aforesaid

complaint was registered as FIR No. 554/2014 under Sections

498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sangam Vihar,

Delhi. During investigation, the petitioner moved an application

before the learned Additional Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory

bail, which was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 24th

November 2014.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition under

Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory

bail in the aforesaid case. When the present petition came up for

hearing before this Court on 28th November 2014, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State accepted notice on behalf

of the State and sought time to file response to the present petition.

However, both the parties showed their willingness to amicably settle

their inter se disputes through the medium of Delhi High Court

Mediation & Conciliation Centre and accordingly the parties were

directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation &

Conciliation Centre on 1st December 2014 at 2.30 PM. In the

meanwhile, subject to petitioner's joining the investigation, the Court

directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner.

4. On 28th January 2015, counsel for the parties informed the

Court that the mediation between them has failed and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the

petitioner was required for investigation in this case. Thereupon,

counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner,

undertook before the Court that the petitioner will appear before Sub-

Inspector Prem Kumar, Investigating Officer of this case on 29 th

January 2015 and thereafter, as and when called. Consequently, the

interim protection was extended to the petitioner till next date of

hearing.

5. The Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre has

filed its report dated 17th March 2015 reporting that the mediation

sessions were held with the parties and their respective counsels on

19.02.2015 and 13.03.2015 but despite best efforts, no settlement

could be arrived at. The mediation ended as a 'Non-Settlement'.

Accordingly, a similar order was passed by this Court on 19th May

2015 extending the interim protection to the petitioner subject to his

appearing before the Investigating Officer on 21st May 2015 at 4.00

p.m. and thereafter, as and when required.

6. The State has filed its status report informing that the petitioner

had joined the investigation and he has already been disowned by his

parents and presently he is working as a driver and earning Rs.8,000/-

per month and he does not own any property except the ancestral land

measuring 11 bigha 5 biswa situated at Village Jeetpura Kharak,

District Bijnore, U.P. The State has further reported that the

investigation is still in progress and the petitioner is required for

investigation. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the

petitioner, undertook that the petitioner will appear before the

Investigating Officer of this case as and when required.

7. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioner and have gone through the status report filed on behalf of

the State.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court observes that the dispute between the parties relate to a

matrimonial one and the investigation is going on and the petitioner

has joined the investigation and had appeared before the Investigating

Officer of this case, whenever he was called. The petitioner has also

not misused the liberty of interim protection granted to him vide order

dated 28th November 2014. Therefore, this Court is inclined to extend

the interim protection to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated

28th November 2014 granting interim protection to the petitioner is

made absolute.

9. Consequently, it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the

petitioner - Deepak Kumar, he be admitted to bail on furnishing a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like

amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Petitioner is

directed to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when

required, he shall not tamper with the evidence, he shall not influence

the prosecution witnesses and shall not leave the country without prior

permission of the concerned Court.

10. Needless to say that anything observed in the present case shall

have no bearing on the merits of the case.

11. With aforesaid directions, the present bail application stands

disposed of.

12. Dasti.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 07, 2015 pkb