Delhi High Court
Smt. Krishna Bhoj & Anr. vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 29 August, 2018
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 29.08.2018
BAIL APPLN. 1058/2018
SMT. KRISHNA BHOJ & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Singh and Mr. Amith J., Advs.
For the Respondent : Mr. Neelam Sharma, Addl. PP for the State with
W/SI Davinder Kaur
Mr. B.N. Singhvi, Adv. for complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 29.08.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners seek anticipatory Bail in case FIR No. 307 of 2016
under Sections 498-A/406 of the IPC Police Station Rajinder Nagar, New
Delhi.
2. Petitioner no. 1 is the mother-in-law of complainant and petitioner
no. 2 is brother-in-law of complainant.
3. The allegations in the FIR are that the husband of the prosecutrix
after marriage did not treat her well and thereafter has abandoned her. The
allegations against the petitioners are that they are not disclosing the
whereabouts of the husband who was lastly contacted by the complainant
from Singapore and the petitioners are shielding him. It is further
submitted that the jewellery articles of the complainant are with the mother
in law of petitioner no. 1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant and
her husband (i.e. son of the petitioner No. 1) had not resided with them but
last resided in Singapore and there are no jewellery articles in possession of
the petitioners. It is submitted that petitioner No. 2 is a resident of
Malaysia.
5. Learned counsel further submits that there are no allegations against
the petitioners in the subject FIR to warrant registration of a case against
them. He further submits that the petitioners are not aware of the
whereabouts of the husband of the complainant and have made all the
efforts abroad to trace out his whereabouts.
6. By order dated 28.05.2018, interim protection was granted to the
petitioners, subject to petitioners joining investigation. Learned Addl. PP
informs that petitioner No. 1 did join investigation and as Petitioner No. 2
is resident abroad, no notice was issued to him to join investigation.
7. On perusal of the record and keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners have made
out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the arresting
officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioners on bail on their furnishing a
bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating Officer/SHO
concerned. The petitioners shall not do anything that may prejudice either
the trial or the prosecution witnesses. Petitioners shall also join
investigation as and when required by the IO.
9. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master
AUGUST 29, 2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
'rs'
