Vinod Kumar Sharma v. The State of Delhi

1. The case is taken up today as 23.01.2015 was declared a holiday.

2. This is an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner for grant ofanticipatory bail incase FIR No.313/13 u/s 498A/406IPC registered with PS Rohini North.

3. Itis submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the applicant has filed a divorce petition against the complainant and on receiving the notice, the complainant filed a false complaint with CAW Cell and also filed a complaint u/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The applicant joined the proceedings at CAW Cell but no settlement could be arrived at. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has passed the interim order on 19^*" August, 2013 for grant ofinterim maintenance, residence atthe house 2015:DHC:10559 of applicant and protection order against which an appeal has been preferred by the applicant. There are no chances ofabsconding as the petitioner is working as Superintendent in Mother Dairy since 1997. The petitioner is ready to return the articles but the complainant refused to receive the same. He hasjoined investigation. As such, he be released on bail.

4. The application is opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well the counsel for the complainant on the ground that complainant could not conceive and, therefore, she remained under treatment from various doctors but at no point oftime any expenses were incurred by the applicant. Under influence of alcohol, he used to beat the complainant. Despite the fact that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had passed orders for residence and maintenance, the petitioner has failed to abide by the same. The complainant refused to receive the articles since the petitioner failed to comply with the orders of learned Metropolitan Magistrate. As such, he should not bereleased onbail.

5. Aperusal of FIR reflects that the main problem between the parties arose because the complainant could not conceive and the petitioner started consuming alcohol and under the influence ofliquor, started beating her and creating scenes. In view ofthese allegations, the matter was even referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and despite several meetings the matter could not be settled.

6. It is the case ofthe applicant that in pursuance to the directions given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts on 24'^ August, 2013 he tookthe dowryarticlestoPolice Stationforreturning the same to the complainant but the complainant did not came to the police station to take backthe articles. It is stated by the complainant that since the petitioner has failed to provide separate residence to her as directed by learned MetropoHtan Magistrate, therefore, she has no place to keep the articles and, therefore, did not go to Police Station. The orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is under challenge before the Appellate Court.

7. Keeping in view the totality ofthe facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that in the event ofhis arrest:-

(i) Petitioner be admitted to bail on his executing personal bond in the sum ofRs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./SHO.

(ii) He shall join the investigation as and when called for by the

(ill) He shall furnish his address as well as his contact number to the

(iv) He shall not threaten or coerce complainant or any prosecution witness.

JANUARY 27,2015/„ g(jPTA, J