Delhi High Court
Tarun Kumar Sharma vs State on 1 December, 2016
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and Order : December 01, 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 2430/2016
TARUN KUMAR SHARMA
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tarun Kumar Bedi, Mr. Arjun
Singh Bhati, Mr. Sidharth Agarwal,
Advocates
versus
STATE
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish Datta, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
Inspector Sandeep Rathi, Police
Station Ranhola, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
% ORDER
P.S.TEJI, J. (Oral)
1. By this petition filed under Section 439 of Cr. P.C., read with
Section 482 of Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks bail in a case registered as
FIR No. 780/2015 under Section 498-A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code,
at Police Station Ranhola, Delhi.
2. The prosecution case is based on the complaint filed by
Mrs.Renu Sharma before the CAW Cell and it is only by the
recommendation of CAW Cell, the present FIR was registered against
the petitioner and his parents on 24.09.2015. Investigations carried out
and statement of the complainant under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. was
also recorded. The complainant also provided the relevant documents
supporting the allegations leveled in the FIR. Petitioner had earlier
applied for anticipatory bail thrice, but every time his application was
rejected. Even proceedings under Section 82 of Cr. P.C. were initiated
against him and ultimately on 13.07.2016, the petitioner was arrested.
After arrest, the petitioner also filed bail application before the
concerned magistrate, which was rejected. Thereafter, petitioner
applied for regular bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
which was declined vide order dated 21.09.2016 while observing that
filing of the chargsheet is not a change in circumstance. Further
application for seeking regular bail was also rejected by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 14.10.2016, while
observing no change in circumstance. Petitioner's third application
was also rejected vide order dated 22.10.2016. Hence, the petitioner is
before this court.
3. There is an allegation of the complainant that the petitioner is
involved in extra-marital affairs and out of which he also has a female
child. It is further alleged that the petitioner is not living with the
complainant at matrimonial home and does not provide any money to
meet her day to day needs. Even the school authorities are not
allowing her elder son to appear in exams due to non payment of fees.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner
was married to the complainant in the year 1995 and no complaint of
any nature was either against him or his parents and it is only on the
behest of parents of the complainant with intention to grab the
property of the old aged parents of the applicant, they have been
falsely implicated in the case. It is further contended that the petitioner
is in custody for the last about four and half months. Even the charge
sheet dated 10.08.2016 in the case has been filed on 7.9.2016 and the
petitioner is no more required for any interrogation or inquiry in the
matter.
5. Apart from the above, it is further contended on behalf of the
petitioner that there are old ailing parents (mother - 73 years and
father - 78 years) and no one else than the petitioner is there to take
care of them. Mother of the petitioner has been operated for cancer
and also needs continuous care. It is further urged that there is no
likelihood of the petitioner to interfere or tamper with any evidence or
influencing the witnesses or the investigation in the matter. Therefore,
no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in
custody.
6. Mr. Ashish Datta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and
submitted that during investigation it is revealed that the petitioner has
extra marital affair with a lady namely Mrs. Avantika and out of this
affair, there is also a girl child namely Shubhangi. Besides this, the
petitioner's three anticipatory applications were rejected and
proceedings under Section 82 Cr. P.C. were also initiated against him.
It is only thereafter, he was arrested on 13.07.2016. On merits, it is
also submitted on behalf of the State that during investigation it was
revealed that the petitioner is also not paying any money and attention
towards the complainant and two sons. More so, three applications
seeking regular bail have already been rejected by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge. At last, it is stated that while looking into
the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner be not released
on bail.
7. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner as
well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also
gone through the material placed on record.
8. For granting bail to the accused person, the court has need not
to go into the facts of the case. However, this court is of the
considered opinion that while considering the prayer for grant of bail,
a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice
should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and there should
be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of
the accused and the Court should consider reasonable apprehension of
tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant
and unless there are peculiar and special facts and circumstances in a
given case, the Court would not be justified in extending the benefit of
bail to such a person.
9. In view of the aforesaid settled principles and considering the
facts that the investigation in this case has been completed, charge
sheet has been filed and so far as the allegations of extra marital
affairs are concerned, the same is a matter of trial, upon which the
Trial Court is already ceased with the matter, which can be adjudged
only after leading cogent evidence. So far as the prayer for grant of
bail to the petitioner is concerned, this court observes that the
petitioner has been charged with the offence punishable under Section
498-A/406 IPC and he is also behind bars for more than a period of
four and half months, even charge sheet has been filed and the
petitioner is no more required for any interrogation or inquiry.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner - Tarun Kumar Sharma, subject
to furnishing of his personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with two
sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
10. 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.
11. Before parting with the order, this Court would like to place it
on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated
hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of
disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing
contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final
opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the
case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of
the trial.
12. With aforesaid direction, the present bail application, filed by
the petitioner stands disposed of.
P.S.TEJI, J
DECEMBER 01, 2016
pkb
