Full Text
7^
$~
* IN THE HIQH COURT OF PELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2113/2013
RAM PRASAP Petitioner
Through: Mr.Surinder Singh, Adv.
Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP.
Mr.Ankit Agarwal, Adv. for complainant with complainant in person.
+ BAIL APPLN. 2114/2013
SHIVA BHARTI Petitioner
Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP.
AND
+ BAIL APPLN. 2118/2013 r-
DEEPANKAR BHARTI Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yogesh Verma, APP.
AND
+ BAIL APPLN. 2119/2013
HITESH @ GUMPI Petitioner
AND
+ BAIL APPLN. 2121/2013
ROHIT BHARTI Petitioner
AND
+ BAIL APPLN. 2123/2013
MITHUN BHARTI Petitioner t:; u
Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv. for complainantwith complainantin person.
% 19.11.2013
ORDER
1. These applications have been filed by petitioners/accused persons under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail to them.
2. Learned counsel for the petitionershas submittedthat complainant i.e. Hansika is the wife of accused - Mithun Bharti. It is stated that the complainant got married with him on 29.11.2009. A male child has been bom jfrom their wedlock in 2010 who is in the custody of complainant/wife. It is submitted that since 18.11.2011 they are living separately. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the complainant is in the habit of involving her husband i.e. petitioner Mithun Bharti and his family members in false criminal cases. It is submitted that earlier on her complaint FIR No.63/2013 under section 498A/323 IPC has been registered against petitioners and other family members i.e. in all 11 persons in P.S. Mianwali Nagar wherein anticipatory bail has been granted to them. Learned counsel further submits that the jewellery articles ofcomplainant have been returned and the husband of the complainant i.e. petitioner - Mithun Bharti is paying r Rs.10,000/- as maintenance to her. It is further submitted thatthereafter the complainant had filed an application for cancellation ofthe bail before the learned ASJ wherein the matter was referred to the Mediation but it could not be settled before the learned Mediator and ultimately the application for cancellation of bail filed by the complainant was dismissed by the learned ASJ vide order dated 25.9.2013. It is submitted that the husband of the complainant has also deposited Rs.l lakh qua the disputed articles ofdowry in the aforesaid FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that again on the complaint of wife of petitioner Mithun Bharti present FIR i.e. FIR No.288/2013 has been registered under Section 323/308/509/34 IPG at P.S. Mianwali Nagar against him and his family members wherein she has levelled false allegations against them. Learned counsel has submitted that the said FIRhas been lodged bythe complainant with a motive to send her husband and entire family members behind the bar. It is submitted that complainant has levelled false allegations against the petitioners that they had given abuses and beatings to her when she had gone to her matrimonial home. It is submitted that she has levelled false allegations that her 2 year old son was thrown by the 'chachia sasur' i.e. brother of father-in-law and thrown him due to which the child had sustained injuries on the head. Learned counsel submits that the allegations made are false. It is submitted that even assuming the allegations are correct, it is a case of assault and no case under Section 308/34 IPG is made out against the petitioners. It is submitted that as per allegations, no weapon of offence is used. Learned counsel further submitsthat the learned ASJ had granted anticipatory bail to two ladies of the family. It is submitted that the father-in-law of the complainant has been given regular bail. Itis prayed that the other accused persons i.e. petitioners who are 6in number be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Learned APP has opposed the bail application. Itis submitted that the allegations in the FIR are serious against them. As per allegations, achild of tender age oftwo years is thrown due to which he had sustained injuries on the head. The petitioners have also given beatings to the complainant as such their application be rejected. Learned APP has also submitted that the allegations intheprevious FIRare also correct.
5. I have considered the submissions made and perused the material on record including the MLC ofthe child who is of2years ofage. As per the said MLC, there isa lacerated woimd ofthe size of3cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm on the parieto occipital region. The main allegations in the FIR are against Ram Prasad who is the brother of the father-in-law of the complainant. As per allegations, he also resides in the same house where the husband of complainant is living. All the family members who are named in the FIR live in the same house.
6. The petitioners Gumpi, Deepankar, Shiva and Rohit are the unmarried brothers-in-law of the complainant. They are of the age group of 21 years, 19 years, 23 years and 25 years respectively. The petitioner - Gumpi is stated to be a student. Deepankar is also a student and Rohit is stated to be preparing for IAS Examination. No specific role has been assigned to them in the FIR as having caused injuries to the child. Considering the allegations against them, it is ordered that in the event ofarrest, they be released on bail on furnishing bond inthe sum of^10,000/- with one surety ofthe like amount to the satisfaction ofthearresting officer/I.O. They shall jointhe investigation as and when called by the I.O.
7. As regards accused Ram Prasad, specific role has been assigned to him. He is not entitled for anticipatory bail. His bail application is rejected. Considering the nature ofallegations, the petitioner- Mithun Bharti who is the husband of the complainant is also not entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail. His application is also rejected. VEENABIRBSCT^ NOVEMBER 19,2013 kks