Ritesh Bajaj vs State
2015 Latest Caselaw 9098 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                               Judgment delivered on : December 07, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 1729/2015
      RITESH BAJAJ                                       ..... Petitioner
                         Through     Mr.Yeeshu Jain & Ms.Jyoti Tyagi,
                                     Advs. with petitioner in person.

                         versus

      STATE                                              ..... Respondent
                         Through:    Ms.Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
                                     Prosecutor for the State.
                                     Mr.Mohit Gupta, Adv. for the
                                     complainant with complainant in
                                     person.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
                         JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition is filed under Section 438 of IPC seeking

anticipatory bail in a case registered as FIR No.1241/2014 under

Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, registered at Police Station K.N. Katju

Marg, New Delhi.

2. The petitioner, before taking voluntary retirement, served the

Indian Army at the post of Captain and was married to respondent

No.2 on 29.11.2013 and after lapse of little time, there were quarrels

between the parties on one pretext or the other. The complainant had

also filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Police on

31.8.2014, but the complainant herself preferred to take no action on

the said complaint while getting her statement recorded before the

Inspector (Counselling) on 16.10.2014. The petitioner herein had also

moved an application seeking anticipatory bail before the Trial Court

and vide order dated 24.02.2015, the Trial Court was pleased to grant

a notice period of five days before the arrest of the petitioner, while

directing the petitioner to join the investigation as and when required

by the Investigating Officer. It is further contented that the petitioner

had joined the investigation on various dates.

3. On 25th August 2015, when the present petition came up for

hearing before this Court, counsel for the petitioner submitted that

without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and to show bona fide,

petitioner is ready to deposit an FDR in the sum of Rs.1 lac in the

name of the Trial Court with the Investigating Officer of this case

within a period of one week and it was also submitted that the

petitioner is also eager to settle this matrimonial dispute through

mediation.

4. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State,

on instructions from the complainant of the FIR in question,

submitted that the possibility of amicable settlement in this matter can

be explored through mediation.

5. Accordingly, both the parties were directed to appear before the

Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 3rd September

2015 at 3.00 PM and thereafter, as and when called and subject to

petitioner complying with the undertaking regarding deposit of the

said FDR and joining and co-operating in the mediation proceedings,

the petitioner was granted the interim protection. It was also ordered

that the FDR be retained by the Investigating Officer of this case and

the same be not released to the complainant of the FIR till further

orders.

6. On 20.11.2015, an application was filed by the petitioner for

taking on record the settlement and the same was disposed of on the

same date.

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

petitioner and have gone through the material placed on record.

8. Considering the fact that the parties to the present application

have settled their inter se disputes through the medium of Delhi High

Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, therefore, the interim

protection given to the petitioner vide order dated 25.08.2015 is made

absolute. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the

petitioner - Ritesh Bajaj, 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. Parties are directed

to remain bound by the terms of the settlement arrived at between

them before the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre,

in the present case. 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 Court.

9. With aforesaid directions, the present bail application stands

disposed of.

10. Dasti.

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