Delhi High Court
Zubair vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 1 March, 2016
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1995/2015
Date of Decision: March 1st , 2016
ZUBAIR ..... PETITIONER
Through Mr.M.L. Gupta, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... RESPONDENT
Through Mr.Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State with ASI Sunita, PS Jagat Puri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER
P.S.TEJI, J (Oral)
1. The present bail application has been preferred by the petitioner
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking
anticipatory bail in a case arising out of FIR No.334/2015 registered at
Police Station Jagatpuri, Delhi under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present bail application are
within the narrow compass. The marriage between the petitioner and the
complainant namely Shahana Praveen, was solemnized as per Muslim
rites and rituals on 5th November, 2006. The allegation of the petitioner
is that after a few months from the date of marriage, the complainant
started harassing & humiliating the petitioner as well as his family
members. A false and frivolous case was also stated to have filed by the
complainant against the brother of the petitioner in which, the brother of
the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner gave divorce/Tallak to the complainant
as per Muslim rituals and the complainant filed a false complaint against
the petitioner as well as his family members in the Women Cell, Gazipur,
Delhi and the present FIR No.334/2015 was registered under Sections
498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the police officials of the P.S.
Jagatpuri.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
petitioner got married with another woman namely Ishrat Jahan and a
baby girl was born out of their wedlock.
5. After registration of the FIR, the petitioner filed an application for
anticipatory bail which was listed before the learned District Judge and
on 14th August, 2015, the petitioner stated that he would return all the
istridhan articles to the complainant as per list. The petitioner was
directed to bring all the istridhan articles at Police Station Jagatpuri on
16th August, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. for the purpose of handing over the same
to the complainant under the supervision of Investigating Officer.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in compliance
with the direction, the petitioner had taken all the available 52 Istridhan
articles to the police station and returned the same to the complainant
under her signature. Copy of the list of Istridhan articles which were
returned to the complainant, is annexed with the petition as Annexure
P-4. However, it is next contended that the counsel for the petitioner
had wrongly noted the next date of hearing as 19th August, 2015 instead
of 18th August, 2015, and on account of his non-appearance on the actual
date of hearing, the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed in
default.
7. It transpires from the record that another bail application preferred
by the petitioner was listed before the Court on 20th August, 2015 when
counsel for the petitioner failed to bring to the notice of the Court the fact
of compliance of the order dated 14th August, 2015, as a result of which
the bail application was dismissed in default.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
petitioner engaged another counsel and preferred another bail application
in which he apprised the Court about all the facts of the case. On 10 th
September, 2015, however, the learned District & Sessions Judge
dismissed the bail application preferred by the petitioner on the ground
that no new ground had arisen. On that date itself, the learned Addl.P.P.
had opposed the bail on the ground that conduct of the accused during
investigation was unjust and unwanted.
9. Mr.Mukesh Kumar, learned APP for the State on instructions of
the investigating officer who is present in Court, has vehemently opposed
the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that the
petitioner is not co-operating in the investigation and evidence and rather
obstructing in the recovery of dowry articles and he is required for
custodial interrogation to find out the dowry articles.
10. After careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the present
case and arguments of rival contentions to the effect that the petitioner is
prolonging the investigation and causing obstruction in the matter of
recovery of dowry articles and as such required for the purpose of
custodial interrogation, this Court is of the considered opinion that this
case is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present
case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the
concession of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in this case.
12. Accordingly, the present bail application filed by the petitioner, is
dismissed.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
MARCH 01, 2016
aa
