Naveen Rana vs State
2015 Latest Caselaw 7304 Del

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                            Date of decision: 23rd September, 2015

                              BAIL APPLN. 1075/2015

       NAVEEN RANA

                                                                     ..... Petitioner

                              Through Mr. Rohit Kalyan, Mr.Kanan Sharma and
                                     Mr. Siddharth Sanewal, Advocates along
                                     with the petitioner in person.

                              versus

       STATE

                                                                   ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Rajat Katyal, APP.

SI Ajay Kumar, P.S.Nangloi.

Mr.RN.Sharma, counsel for the complainant along with the complainant in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The present is an application under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for pre-arrest bail in

F.I.R.No.770/2014 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC registered at

Police Station Nangloi, Delhi.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant/wife lodged

a complaint, which has resulted in the subject F.I.R., alleging cruelty

and dowry demand against the applicant/husband. It was alleged that

the applicant/husband who is working as a constable in the Delhi

Police had demanded an i10 car and other dowry articles. It is alleged

that the stridhan belonging to the complainant including jewellery

gifted to her by her parents has also been retained by the

applicant/husband.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, West, vide order

dated 25th May, 2015 dismissed the application for anticipatory bail

filed on behalf of the applicant, inter-alia on the grounds that the

allegations leveled against the applicant/husband are serious in nature

and the articles of dowry have not yet been recovered.

4. Mr. Rajat Katyal, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State

submits that pursuant to the order passed by this court on

29th May, 2015, the applicant/husband has joined investigation.

5. In the present case it is observed that the applicant/husband has

a clean record and is not wanted in any other case. The

applicant/husband has joined investigation and has been cooperating

with the police since the date of the order passed by this court granting

him interim protection.

6. The only ground on which the applicant's prayer for pre-arrest

bail is opposed is that the stridhan belonging to the complainant/wife

is still in his possession.

7. There is no gainsaying the fact that the proceedings under

Section 498A/406 IPC are not meant for the recovery of jewellery and

dowry articles. The applicant/husband cannot be denied bail only on

the ground that his release would render the recovery of jewellery and

other dowry articles difficult. The complainant/wife can, if she so

chooses, move the Civil Court for recovery of articles.

Ref: ( Jagdish Thakkar vs. State of Delhi, reported as 1993 JCC

117) and (Deepak Kumar and Anr. vs. State, reported as 2008 (3)

Crimes 447 (Del.)

8. There is yet another aspect which has to be considered at this

stage. The applicant/husband and the complainant/wife have a two

year old son, namely, Manvik. The applicant/husband who is present

in-person states that he is willing to deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-

(rupees eight lakh) in the account of Master Manvik, in the following

instalments:-

i) Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakh) within two weeks from today;

ii) Remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakh) within two months thereafter.

9. Counsel for the applicant/husband on instructions from the

applicant states that cheques in this behalf shall be handed over to

counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/wife, in the present

application.

10. The applicant/husband also undertakes to return the i10 car

bearing Registration No. DL2CM8352. The possession of the same

be given to the complainant/wife within a period of two weeks from

today.

11. Insofar as the jewellery is concerned it is the case of the

applicant/husband that the complainant/wife took it away with her

while leaving her matrimonial home.

12. In view of the foregoing, the present bail application is

allowed. In the event of his arrest the applicant/husband shall be

released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one local surety in

the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Station

House In-charge/Officer of the concerned Police Station; subject to

the further condition that he shall comply with the directions given by

this Court in regard to the undertaking given by him in his Court. He

shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for

questioning as and when called upon by the concerned Police Officer.

13. The Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

14. Dasti.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 bp