Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1179 (DEL)

NIKITA v. STATE OF DELHI

2006-07-17

A.K.SIKRI

body2006
A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed the complaint on the basis of which FIR No. 517/ 2004 under Sections 498a/406, IPC, Police station, Prashant Vihar, Delhi was registered. In the said FIR apart from implicating her husband, petitioner also levelled allegations against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant. The case is still pending. Respondents 2 to 4 moved an application under section 438 of me Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail and order was passed in their favour by learned Additional sessions Judge, Delhi on 2. 7. 2004 allowing the said application of respondents 2 to 4. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/ complainant for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted uide aforesaid order. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there are serious charges against the accused persons and, therefore, anticipatory bail should not have been granted. Before this contention is appreciated, it would be proper to reproduce the impugned order dated 2. 7. 2004 passed by learned ASJ, Delhi which contains the reasons that persuaded the learned trial Court to grant the anticipatory bail: "applicant No. 1 is the father-in-law, applicant No. 2 is mother-in-law and applcant No. 3 is the brother-in-law of the complainant. They are seeking anticipatory bail. Parties have been married on 12. 7. 2001 before the Marriage Registrar and thereafter marriage was again solemnized as per arya Samaj Rites on 13. 7. 2001. Counsel for the applicants submits that none of the applicants has attended the marriage either on the two occasions. Learned Counsel for the complainant states that dowry articles have been delivered at the house of the applicants on 12. 7. 2001 before the marriage took place. Learned Counsel for the applicants before this Court have not attended the marriage of the parties, the question of their receiving the dowry articles from the complainant did not arise. The married couple left for their matrimonial home in Australia on the following day i. e. 14. 7. 2001 and they stayed there together up to January 2004. The complainant admits that the difference between the parties has arisen in Australia and the litigation have already taken place and, subsequently, she has withdrawn her case. It is also admitted by the complainant that the applicant Nos. 7. 2001 and they stayed there together up to January 2004. The complainant admits that the difference between the parties has arisen in Australia and the litigation have already taken place and, subsequently, she has withdrawn her case. It is also admitted by the complainant that the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and applicant No. 3 had only once on one occasion each visited the parties in Australia. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants, they be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the IO/sho concerned. However, the applicants are directed to join the investigation as and when required by the 1c1. " It is clear from the aforesaid order that the facts which weighed with learned ASJ were that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not even attend the wedding of the complainant and son of respondents 2 and 3 either on 12. 7. 2001 before the Marriage Registrar and thereafter on 13. 7. 2001 the complainant and her husband even left for Australia. Thereafter, whatever transpired between the couple in Australia the learned ASJ has stated in the impugned order that "the complainant admits that the difference between the parties has arisen in Australia". Bail was granted to Respondents 2 to 4. Keeping in view the aforesaid considerations, the approach of the learned ASJ and discretion exercised by him cannot be faulted with. ( 2 ) NO doubt there are allegations in the fir that before leaving for Australia the dowry articles given at the time of wedding were delivered to the parents of complainant's husband. The same was denied by the respondents 2 to 4 and their submission was that they had not even attended the marriage either on 12. 7. 2001 before the Marriage Registrar or on 13. 7. 2001 as per Arya Samaj Rites and the dowry articles were delivered at the house of the complainant on 12. 7. 2001 before the marriage took place and that there was no question of receiving the dowry articles from the complainant when they had not even attended the marriage. These are the matters for investigation. 7. 2001 as per Arya Samaj Rites and the dowry articles were delivered at the house of the complainant on 12. 7. 2001 before the marriage took place and that there was no question of receiving the dowry articles from the complainant when they had not even attended the marriage. These are the matters for investigation. The learned ASJ kept in view the totality of the circumstances while granting bail to the respondents 2 to 4. ( 3 ) IT may be mentioned that I am dealing with the application for cancellation of the bail granted by the learned ASJ and the consideration for cancellation would be totally different than the considerations which are to be kept in mind while granting the bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of an appeal [see bhagirath singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat ( 4 ) THIS petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.