Virender Prasad vs State (Nct) Of Delhi
2015 Latest Caselaw 8043 Del

       $~1
       *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
       +      BAIL APPLN. 851/2015
              VIRENDER PRASAD
                                                          ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. P.L. Sharma, Advocate
                             versus

              STATE (NCT) OF DELHI
                                                                     ..... Respondent
                              Through:    Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public
                                          Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
                                          Inspector P.L. Meena, Police Station
                                          Aman Vihar, Delhi.
              CORAM:
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                    ORDER

               %                    19.10.2015

               P.S. TEJI, J. (ORAL)

1. By this petition filed under Section 438 of Cr. P.C., the

petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case registered under FIR

No.1148/2014, under Section 498-A/406/34 of IPC and Section 4

of the Dowry Act, at Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi.

2. Upon notice, Mr. Parveen Bhati, APP for respondent-State

submitted that on 05.05.2015 the complainant who was then

present in court showed her willingness to explore the possibility

of settlement between the parties to which learned counsel for the

petitioner also agreed. Thereafter the matter was referred to the

Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 20 th May

2015 and the petitioner was granted interim order in his favour,

thereby he was directed to deposit the FDR for a sum of Rs.2 lac

before the Trial Court.

3. The application for seeking interim bail, as preferred by the

petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, was dismissed vide

order dated 06.04.2015, by observing that the application filed by

the present petitioner was pre mature and also that there was no

reflection for settlement on the part of the applicant/petitioner with

the complainant.

4. To impugned the aforesaid order passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge 04 (North-West), the petitioner has

preferred the present bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

5. On 5th May 2015, while hearing the present petitioner, this

court passed the following order:-

"Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there was a mediated settlement of 23rd July 2014 whereby parties had agreed to live together but due to suspicious nature of complainant/first-informant, they could not reside together. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner, he is ready to deposit fixed deposit receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of trial court with the trial court within four weeks.

Upon notice, Mr. Parveen Bhati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that complainant/ first informant is present in the court and she wants to explore possibility of a mediated settlement so that parties amicably resolve their dispute or gracefully part ways.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is also present in court and he is eager for a comprehensive mediated settlement.

In view of the aforesaid, let the parties appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 20th May 2015 at 3.00 pm and thereafter, as and when called.

Renotify on 29th September 2015.

Till then, subject to petitioner depositing the First Deposit Receipt with trial court within aforesaid period and his joining mediation proceedings, he be not arrested in this case.

Dasti.

6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 5.5.2015,

the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.2 lac by way of

FDR. In support of his contention the petitioner has also placed on

record the order dated 02.06.2015 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge thereby disposing the application filed by the

petitioner for depositing the amount of Rs.2 lac.

7. The complainant/respondent No.2 is also present in court

and states that the matter has already been settled between the

parties.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present

petition preferred by the petitioner/applicant is allowed and it is

directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner is directed to be

released on bail on furnishing his personal bond in the sum of

Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the

satisfaction of the arresting officer. The petitioner is directed not

to tamper with the evidence; not to influence the prosecution

witnesses and shall not leave the country without prior permission

of the Court concerned.

9. With aforesaid directions, the present bail application is

disposed of. However, it is made clear that the observations made

above shall not affect the merits of the case.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE OCTOBER 19, 2015 pkb