Sqn Ldr Rohit Kumar Tomar vs State Govt Of Nct Delhi
2016 Latest Caselaw 4076 Del

$~
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                         DECIDED ON : MAY 27, 2016.

+                           BAIL APPLN. 240/2016

        SQN LDR ROHIT KUMAR TOMAR
                                                                 ..... Petitioner
                            Through :    Mr.Sidharth Luthra, Sr.Advocate,
                                         with Mr.Anoopam N.Prasad and
                                         Mr.Shashi Shankar, Advocates.

                            Versus

        STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI
                                                                ..... Respondent
                            Through :    Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.
                                         Mr.Ravi Bassi, Advocate, for the
                                         complainant.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in Case FIR No.29/16 under Section 354/376 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station Maya Puri. Status report filed by the State and response filed by the complainant/prosecutrix are on record.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties including the counsel for the complainant and have perused the file.

3. Vide order dated 01.02.2016, the petitioner was granted interim protection and was directed to join the investigation as and when required. Undisputedly, the petitioner has joined the investigation since then.

4. Admitted position is that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were acquainted with each other prior to the lodging of the FIR. Negotiations for marriage between the two had taken place and pursuant to that a roka/ring ceremony had taken place on 14.01.2014. The parties continued to have conversation with each other subsequent to that. On 11.10.2015, the prosecutrix received an SMS from the petitioner expressing his inability to marry her. Subsequently, on 12.01.2016, the FIR was lodged.

5. Admittedly in the initial complaint lodged on 12.01.2016, there were no allegations of commission of rape. Only in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded on 14.01.2016, the prosecutrix implicated the petitioner for sexual assault in a car on 30.04.2014 when she had gone to attend marriage of petitioner's friend Gaurav at Raddison Blue Hotel. The petitioner denied the allegations stating that since there is a valet parking at the Raddison Blue Hotel, Ghaziabad, sexual assault in the parking area was not possible. Status report filed by the Investigating Agency supports it. Even after the said alleged incident, the prosecutrix did not lodge any complaint and both continued to meet each other. The victim through her counsel had served a legal notice dated 30.10.2015 to various authorities including Air Chief Martial. Even in that complaint, there was no mention of commission of rape. It is a matter of investigation/trial as to how and under what circumstances after performing roka ceremony, marriage proposal between the two could not proceed further. Both the parties have given their own different reasons in this regard and these cannot be gone through at this stage.

6. In the complaint, the victim has also levelled allegations of demand of dowry against the petitioner and his family members.

7. Since the marriage between the parties did not materialize after roka ceremony, the petitioner must return the articles received in the said ceremony and also to pay reasonable amount for the expenses incurred by victim's family from time to time. It has been informed that total expenses incurred by the victim's family were approximately `5.5 lacs. This amount must be paid be the petitioner to the victim without prejudice and subject to adjustment (if any).

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail and in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/Investigating Officer with the condition that he shall join the investigation as and when required. `5,50,000 (Rupees five lacs fifty thousand) shall be paid by the petitioner to the complainant through Investigating Officer within two weeks without prejudice and subject to future adjustment (if any).

9. The bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.

10. Observations in the order shall have no impact on merits of the case.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 27, 2016 sa