Delhi High Court
Sandeep Singh Kadyan vs State on 24 January, 2020
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 24.01.2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 189/2020 & CRLM.A. 1589/2020
SANDEEP SINGH KADYAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K.Saxena, Mr.
Yogender Kumar, Ms S.
Kadayan and Mr. Kapil
Chandra, Advocates.
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. G.M.Garooqui,
APP for State with SI
Saroj Singh PS: Dwarka
North.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
JUDGMENT
BRIJESH SETHI, J (ORAL)
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an anticipatory bail
application filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the
petitioner Sandeep Singh Kadyan in FIR No. 0359/2019 u/s.
498A/377/506/34 IPC, PS Dwarka North.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail
on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely
Bail Appl. no. 189/2020 Page no.1 of 6
implicated. It is submitted that petitioner is the husband of the
complainant and their marriage was solemnized on 12/05/2013. It is
further submitted that complainant is working as constable in Crime
Branch and has filed multiple complainants against the petitioner
and his family members but in none of the complaints which were
filed earlier there is mentioning of the allegations as mentioned in
the present FIR. It is further submitted that the alleged incidents
with respect to Section 377 IPC had taken for the first time in June
2018 but during this period the petitioner was not medically fit even
to walk and therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to
perform such an act in such a poor health. It is further submitted
that all the allegations as levelled by the complainant in the present
FIR are false and baseless and the FIR lodged by the Complainant is
concocted and false and an abuse of the process of law. It is further
submitted that there is an apprehension that police may arrest the
petitioner in present FIR bearing no. 359/2019 and, therefore, it is
prayed that in the event of arrest, he be released on anticipatory bail.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, in support of its submissions,
has relied upon 'Kuldeep Kapoor & Anr v. State, NCT of Delhi',
Bail Appl. no. 189/2020 Page no.2 of 6
Bail Appl No. 584/2017 decided on 19.07.2018. I have gone
through the order on the bail application. However, the same is
distinguishable on the basis of the facts and circumstances stated
therein.
4. The anticipatory bail application is opposed by the Ld. APP
for the State on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner
are serious in nature. Petitioner has forcefully performed unnatural
sex with his wife and also physically assaulted her. He has, therefore
prayed for dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.
5. I have considered the rival submissions. The present case FIR
No. 359/19 u/s. 498A/377/34 IPC, PS Dwarka North, New Delhi
was registered on 06.09.2019 on the complaint of complainant made
before the Assistant commissioner of Police, CAW Cell, Dwarka
District, New Delhi wherein she has alleged that her parents
solemnized her marriage as per Hindu rituals on 12-05-2013. It was
her second marriage with consent of both families. Soon after her
marriage, her husband and his family members started physically
and mentally harassing her and taunted her by many ways saying
that she was not a suitable lady for their family. On February, 2014
Bail Appl. no. 189/2020 Page no.3 of 6
complainant had given birth to a male child out of this wedlock.
Complainant alleged that at the time of kuan pujan, her mother -in
law demanded more things from her parents. Petitioner was having
relation with a foreigner lady namely Delphine Jade Marie and due
to this reason, he did not behave properly with complainant. When
she objected to such relationship, petitioner threatened her for
divorce. Petitioner had performed forcibly unnatural sex with her.
On 15.12.2018, petitioner assaulted the complainant physically.
During course of investigation, statements U/S 161 Cr.PC. of the
complainant and her relatives were recorded. Statement of
complainant u/s 164 Cr.PC was also recorded before Ld. MM, Ms.
Udita Jain in which she has reiterated her previous version. During
the course of investigation, complainant has filed an application that
petitioner is threatening her and, therefore, section 506 was also
added in present case.
6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the earlier
FIR bearing no. 226/2018 dated 07.09.2018 filed by the complainant
under Section 420/467/468/471/494/120B IPC PS Crime Branch,
allegations of unnatural sexual intercourse or dowry harassment
Bail Appl. no. 189/2020 Page no.4 of 6
have not been mentioned and this clearly shows that the present FIR
has been lodged just to harass the petitioner. However, the court is
of the view that the FIR bearing no. 226/2018 was registered on the
ground that petitioner ran away with one Delphine Jade Maria and
married her whereas the present FIR has been registered for
harassment as well as performing unnatural sexual intercourse by
the petitioner. Even if these facts were not mentioned in the earlier
complaint by the complainant because of the fear of getting socially
defamed and also because of the fact that she was being constantly
threatened that she would be killed if she would not withdraw her
case, it does not mean that her version should not be believed. Non-
mentioning of certain facts in the earlier FIR does not dilute the
offences alleged in the present FIR. The petitioner's defence that he
was not well and incapable of performing alleged offence under
Section 377 IPC cannot be considered at this stage when the
investigation is at a very initial stage.
7. In view of the above facts appearing on record and keeping in
view the allegations levelled against the petitioner that he has
committed unnatural sexual intercourse with the complainant and
Bail Appl. no. 189/2020 Page no.5 of 6
also physically assaulted her, no grounds for anticipatory bail are
made out. The anticipatory bail application is, therefore, dismissed
and stands disposed of accordingly.
BRIJESH SETHI, J
JANUARY 24, 2020
Ak
Bail Appl. no. 189/2020 Page no.6 of 6
