Amar Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr

(1) Present Bail Applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.412/2015 under Sections 307/34 IPG registered at Police Station Chhawla. Status reports areonrecord. (2) Ihave heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by the complainant's counsel and have examined the file. (3) The petitioners are closely related to the victim. Victim's marriage with Neeraj Chauhan took place on 10.02.2003 and two children were bom out ofthis wedlock. On the day of incident, the victim was residing along with her family members on the first floor in a separate portion at the matrimonial home. Allegations in the complaint lodged on 13.07.2015 are that the petitioners and Neeraj Chauhan attempted to kill her at around 10.30 p.m. on 12.07.2015 by strangulating her. She was taken for medical examination at Rao Tula Ram-Memorial Hospital. Minor abrasion on left wrist; erythema around neck (circular) and abrasion on left side of neck were noticed on victim's body. Efforts were made out to fmd out the petitioners and Neeraj Chauhan. Their whereabouts could not be ascertained and they were declared absconders on 20.10.2015. (4) At the outset, it may be mentioned that the petitioners had filed these petitions seeking anticipatory bail on 04.08.2015 prior to their declaring 'absconders' on 20.10.2015. It is informed that Neeraj BailAppl.Nos.1584-85/2015 2of[4] /> Chauhan has since been arrested in this case on 29.10.2015. DD No.58A reeorded at 10.45 p.m. implieates only the victim's husband for giving her beatings. MLC also records alleged history ofphysical assault by her husband. The petitioners were not named or implicated at that time. During investigation, statement of ehild Aditya Chauhan, aged around eight years, was reeorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 15.07.2015. He gave detailed account as to how and under what cireumstances a quarrel had taken plaee between his father and mother. He did not implieate the petitioners for causing any injury to the vietim. Entire allegations were only against his father. Similarly, Tanish Chauhan, another ehild aged around ten years in his 164 Cr.P.C. statement assigned specific role to his father only for strangulation. (5) The injuries sustained by the vietim were 'simple' in nature. After the occurrence, she was free to make telephone ealls to her parents who arrived at the spot and took her for medical examination. There was no complaintagainstthe petitioners at any time prior to the incident for harassing the eomplainant on aecount of dowry demands. (6) Considering the faets and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are admitted to antieipatory bail and in the event of their arrest, they be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of ^50,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaetion of the SHO/Investigating Officer with the condition that they shalljoin the investigation as and when required. Bail ApplNos.1584-85/2015 Page 3 of[4] (7) The bail applications and all other pending applications stand disposed of.