Sandeep Kumar vs State Thr. Nct Of Delhi
2015 Latest Caselaw 9524 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                  Judgment delivered on : December 22, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 387/2015
      SANDEEP KUMAR                                         ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate.
                    versus
      STATE THR. NCT OF DELHI                    ..... Respondent
                    Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
                              Public Prosecutor for the State with
                              ASI Dharambir Singh, Police Station
                              Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                     JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.02.2015 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge - 04, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, the

petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 438 of Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C.),

seeking anticipatory bail in case registered as FIR No. 823/2014 under

Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, Police Station Uttam Nagar, New

Delhi.

2. The present case is registered at the instance of the complainant

- Poonam Mehra, wherein she has levelled allegation of dowry

demand against the petitioner and his family members. The

complainant married the petitioner on 30.11.2012 according to Sikh

Rites and ceremonies and one daughter - Baby Ekam was born out of

this wedlock on 16.01.2014. Prior to the instant case, one complaint

was filed at Police Station Naya Gaon Mohali against the petitioner

and his parents but the same was compromised on 05.10.2013. As per

the terms of the compromise dated 05.10.2013, the complainant had

taken all her golden ornaments and valuable clothes and other articles.

On 14.03.2014, the complainant left the company of petitioner with

the infant child and thereafter the petitioner filed a case under Section

9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 before the Hon'ble Court at

Chandigarh in which the complainant appeared and she also filed a

Crl. Writ Petition No.727/2014 seeking custody of the minor

daughter. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn

on 12.05.2014. The complainant again filed a complaint in CAW

Cell, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi against the petitioner and his entire

family members and during investigation, complainant again entered

into compromise with the petitioner and went with the petitioner to

the matrimonial home on 21.05.2014. The Investigating Officer in

CAW Cell directed the petitioner alongwith complainant to appear

before the Investigating Officer on 16.06.2014 for knowing that both

are living together peacefully. When the petitioner reached there, he

saw that the mother of complainant was there and she started

quarrelling with the petitioner and ordered the complainant not to go

back again with the petitioner.

3. After registration of the present FIR, the petitioner filed an

application under Section 438 of Cr. P.C. for anticipatory bail in

which the petitioner was granted interim protection and matter was

referred to mediation cell on 03.11.2014 by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, which continued till 05.02.2015.

4. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner submits that

during the period of interim protection the petitioner alongwith his

family member also joined the investigation as and when called by the

Investigating Officer of this case and the petitioner is also appearing

in the case filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the D.V. Act,

2005. It is further contended that the petitioner is regularly appearing

before the concerned Court and also paying maintenance of

Rs.3,000/- per month for the minor child. Counsel for the petitioner

further contended that the petitioner shall co-operate in the

investigation of this case and undertakes to abide by all the terms and

conditions as imposed by the Court.

5. Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor appeared on

behalf of the State and vehemently opposed the present application

and submitted that the istridhan articles are yet to be recovered from

the petitioner and for that purpose, custodial interrogation of the

petitioner is required.

6. I have heard the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

7. When the present bail application came up for hearing before

this Court on 26.02.2015, both the parties agreed to settle their

matrimonial dispute through Delhi High Court Mediation and

Conciliation Centre and they were directed to appear before the said

Forum on 07.03.2015 at 11.00 a.m. and thereafter, as and when called

and the matter was adjourned to 06.07.2015. In that order, it was

directed that subject to petitioner participating and cooperating in the

mediation proceedings, he shall not be arrested in this case. On

06.07.2015, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

ready to live with the complainant - wife in a rented accommodation,

which was not acceptable to the complainant. Counsel for the

petitioner sought time to obtain instruction as to whether petitioner is

ready to keep the complainant in her matrimonial house in an

exclusive portion to allay the apprehension of family members of the

parties and accordingly the matter was adjourned to 14.08.2015

extending the benefit of interim protection. On 14.08.2015, Counsel

for the petitioner undertook that petitioner would be appearing before

the Investigating Officer of this case on 18.08.2015 at 4 p.m. and

thereafter, as and when called and the matter was adjourned to

17.12.2015 and subject to petitioner joining and cooperating with

investigation of this case, the interim protection was extended till

17.12.2015.

8. A mediation report dated 23.04.2015 is also on record, stating

that the matter was discussed at length but despite best efforts, no

settlement could be arrived at between the parties.

9. After hearing the aforesaid submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the impugned

order and the material placed on record, this Court observes that the

petitioner has joined the investigation and is also appearing in another

case filed by the complainant before the Mahila Court, Tis Hazari,

Delhi, and the petitioner has undertaken to cooperate in the

investigation of this case and is ready to return the istridhan articles to

the Investigating Officer.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is

of inclined to extend the benefit of interim protection to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the interim order dated 26.02.2015 passed in favour of

the petitioner is made absolute. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that

in the event of arrest, petitioner - Sandeep Kumar be released on bail

subject to furnishing of his personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-

with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting

officer.

11. It goes without saying that anything observed in this petition

shall not have any bearing on the merit of the case during trial.

12. With aforesaid directions, both the bail application stand

disposed of.

13. Dasti.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 22, 2015 pkb