Delhi High Court
Manish Dev Malhotra vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 May, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 10.02.2022
% Pronounced on : 06.05.2022
+ BAIL APPLN. 145/2021
MANISH DEV MALHOTRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajive Maini and Ms. Shriya
Maini, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State
with SI Anita Yadav PS South
Rohini.
Mr. Rhythmsheel Srivastava,
Advocate for the Complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
1. This petition is filed by petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.
358/2020 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at police station South
Rohini.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on the complaint of Ms.
Bhawana Sharma the present FIR was registered on 13.10.2020, wherein,
the complainant stated that she got married to Manish Dev Malhotra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:06.05.2022
16:26:27
(Petitioner herein) on 19.01.2020 and prior to their marriage, it was told that
the petitioner is an MBA and he was running a designer studio in Bali
Nagar, Delhi and the father of the petitioner was having a factory of
Generator Set in Maya Puri, Delhi. The complainant alleged that the family
of the complainant spent huge amount to the tune of Rs. 50 lacs in pre-
marriage and marriage functions, including belongings given to the
petitioner and his family members, which are now lying with the petitioner
and his family. It is alleged that the complainant was tortured and taunted,
every now and then by her in-laws and was even questioned about her
physical relations with the petitioner. The complainant was also forced to
resign from service after her marriage and when parents of the complainant
came to her matrimonial house to congratulate on her pregnancy, she was
forcibly sent to her parental house and was further subjected to harassment
and character assassination by the petitioner and her in-laws. It is alleged
that on 18.06.2020, complainant was pressurized for MTP and thus, her
brother took her to her parental house, but her in-laws got her missing report
lodged despite forcibly sending her to the parental home and it is alleged
that the petitioner as well as his family members made no effort to take her
back.
3. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State
assisted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant and perused the status report
filed by the state.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
is the husband of the complainant and has been falsely implicated only on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:06.05.2022
16:26:27
the basis of general and vague allegations levelled by her in the FIR. It is
further submitted that the FIR reveals no allegations of demand of dowry
and the incidents mentioned therein, would only relate to normal wear and
tear of marriage. It is further submitted that a false and imaginary list of
dowry articles, such as jewelry and gifts has been placed on record by the
complainant and the same are currently in custody of the complainant and
not with the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has joined
the investigation ten times, more specifically on 26.11.2020, 25.02.2021,
30.04.2021, 13.07.2021, 20.07.2021, 04.10.2021 and 11.10.2021, out of
which seven times he has physically joined the investigation and three times
over phone. It is further submitted that though the status report alleges that
the petitioner has not cooperated in the investigation, however, the status
report has failed to assign any reason or explanation as to how the petitioner
has not cooperated in the investigation. It is further submitted that the
mother-in-law, father-in-law and the sister-in-law of the complainant have
already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 07.01.2021 and
03.03.2021, respectively, and the petitioner seeks parity. Lastly, it is
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no recovery is to be
effected from the petitioner and he is also not required for the purpose of
custodial interrogation.
5. It is submitted by learned APP for the State assisted by the Ld.
counsel for the complainant that the allegations against the petitioner are
serious in nature and the conduct of the petitioner is dubious as the petitioner
neither got the mobile phone of make Apple submitted as he stated that he
had already sold the mobile phone on 12.10.2020 being damaged and nor
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:06.05.2022
16:26:27
has taken a firm stand regarding the source of the objectionable photographs
submitted by the petitioner before the CAW Cell. It is further submitted that
on one hand the petitioner stated that the said photographs were obtained
from the complainant prior to marriage and some through Facebook or
Instagram, on the other hand, he submitted that the said photographs were
obtained from the wardrobe of the complainant. It is further submitted that
the recovery of the Apple mobile phone and deciphering the source of
photographs is necessary for the sake of investigation as the same will be
clear only after sending the photographs, source of photographs and the
mobile phone in FSL. It is further submitted that the petitioner has joined
the investigation but has not cooperated in the investigation proceedings and
the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovery of the
said mobile phone and for ascertaining the source of the said photographs.
6. The petitioner is the husband of the complainant and has joined
investigation on numerous occasions. The three co-accused persons i.e.,
mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law are already on anticipatory
bail vide order dated 07.01.2021 and 03.03.2021, respectively.
7. There is nothing on record to suggest that there are any allegations of
threatening or tampering with the evidence by the petitioner and as far as the
contention of the Ld. APP that the custodial interrogation of petitioner is
required for recovery of the Apple mobile phone, the petitioner had joined
investigation on 20.07.2021 and stated that he has already sold the mobile
phone on 12.10.2020 as it was damaged and thus, the same cannot be
produced at this juncture. The chats between the parties and the relevant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:06.05.2022
16:26:27
photographs are already part of the records of this case and the same can be
proved during the course of investigation and therefore, custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the said purpose.
8. Keeping in view the nature of allegations against the petitioner, the
ground of parity and the fact that the petitioner has joined investigation, the
interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 14.01.2021 is
made absolute and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be
released on anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the concerned Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO of the concerned
Police Station.
9. The bail application is disposed of in the above terms and all the
pending applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
10. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of any
opinion on the merits of this case.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
MAY 06, 2022/Ak
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:06.05.2022
16:26:27
