Delhi High Court
Amiruddin vs State on 4 May, 2016
#11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 04.05.2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 578/2015
AMIRUDDIN ..... Applicant
Through Mr. Nitendra Kumar, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for State
SI Om Prakash, PS Badarpur
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 (Cr.P.C.) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 652/2014, under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC,
registered at Police Station- Badarpur, Delhi.
2. The subject FIR has been registered at the instance of the complainant
(wife) on an allegation that the applicant (husband) has been harassing her
for dowry and has also allegedly extended threats of physical violence if his
demands were not met.
3. The solitary ground as I can discern from the order of the Trial Court
dated 24th February, 2015 for rejecting the applicant's prayer seeking pre-
arrest bail is that the articles of stridhan are yet to be recovered apart from
the circumstance that the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation.
4. Mr. Ravi Nayak, learned APP appearing on behalf of the police, on
instructions from the Investigating Officer in the subject FIR namely SI Om
Prakash, Police Station- Badarpur, Delhi, states that subsequent to the
rendering of the order dated 24th February, 2015 by the Trial Court, the
applicant has, in fact, joined investigation and is cooperating with it.
5. Therefore, the only issue that arises for consideration is whether the
alleged non-recovery of articles of stridhan can constitute a ground for
rejection of the applicant's prayer for pre-arrest bail.
6. In this behalf, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of this
Court rendered on 17th August, 2015 in Bail Application No. 1827/2014
titled Anuj Kumar vs. The State, wherein it was observed as follows:-
"Insofar as the question of recovery, the complainant's
stridhan i.e. the gifts showered by her in-laws at the time of
her wedding is concerned, proceedings under Sections
406/498A/34 IPC are not meant for the recovery of
jewellery and dowry articles. The applicant cannot be
denied bail only on the ground that his release would render
the recovery of stridhan difficulty. (Ref: Ravi Pranja vs.
State reported as 1997 JCC 123, Surjit Kaur vs. State and
Another, BAIL APPN. 1711/2007 decided on 27.08.2007
and Jagdish Thakkar vs. State reported as 1993 JCC 117.
In view of the ratio in the aforesaid decisions, the
complainant can move the Civil Court for recovery of
articles, if so advised."
7. In this view of the matter, there is no gainsaying the circumstance that
non-recovery of stridhan cannot be a ground for rejection of an application
seeking pre-arrest bail.
8. Even otherwise, the applicant has since joined investigation and is co-
operating with it, the applicant has clean antecedents antecedents and is not
involved in any other case.
9. At this stage, there is neither any hint nor allegation that the applicant
shall not be available to stand trial or that he may attempt to tamper with the
evidence or try to influence the witnesses in the subject FIR.
10. In my view, no useful purpose shall be served by requiring the
custodial interrogation of the applicant herein.
11. In view of the foregoing, the present bail application is allowed.
12. In the event of applicant's arrest, he shall be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with two sureties of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Station House In-
charge subject to the further conditions:-
(i) That he shall continue to co-operate with the
investigation and make himself available for questioning to
a Police Officer as and when called upon to do so.
(ii) That he shall not try to approach and influence the
complainant (wife) in the subject FIR.
13. With the above directions, the present bail application is disposed of.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MAY 04, 2016
SD
