Sameerhasija v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

1. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner/husband.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and complainant was solemnized on 24.4.2012 at Gymkhana Club, Gurgaon, Haryana. The petitioner has alleged that respondent had left the matrimonial house of her own on 25.12.2012 without informing him and his family members and lodged a false complaint with the Police which was converted into FIR No.185/2013 dated 6.4.2013. It is submitted that there are no allegations in the FIR about demand ofdowry by the petitioner or the torture to the complainant due to non-fulfilling demands of dowry. It is submitted that the complainant has made false allegations that educational quahfication and income of the petitioner were concealed before his marriage with her. It is submitted that i 2013:DHC:7017 V...,-' present was a simple marriage and no dowry was given. All the allegations arewrong and the complainant has lodged a false FIRas shewants to extort asum ofRs.20 lakhs from the petitioner. It is submitted that after marriage, at the instance ofcomplainant anew car was purchased as the complainant never wanted to travel in an old car. The complainant herselfis working in Ranbaxy Ltd., Gurgaon earning agood amount. The allegations made in the FIR are false. It is stated that all the articles and clothes ofthe complainant have been returned in CAW Cell as such the petitioner be ordered to be released oh bail in the event ofhis arrest.

3. The bail application is strongly opposed by the learned APP as well as complainant who ispresent in person. The FIR has been read in the court. There are allegations that right from the beginning ofmarriage complainant was treated with cruelty by the petitioner and she was abused and beaten by him on various occasions and the petitioner is also a hard alcoholic. There are allegations that petitionerused to fight with her on the point ofher salary and was demanding Honda City car. There are allegations that on 25.12.2012 petitioner had hit on the head ofthe complainant while putting his hand on her neck. There are allegations that all the dowry articles and the jewellery ofthe petitioner worth Rs.lO lakhs are with him and even her jewellery has not been returned.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that whatever dowry articles were there, have been returned. The list has been furnished by the lO which shows that some items have been returned. However, the list of dowry articles which have been returned, does not mention of any jewellery article or clothes presented at the time ofmarriage. lo

5. There are specific allegations against the present petitioner ofgiving physical beatings and torture to the complainant on different occasions in connection with demand of Honda City car and other articles. The complainant is an educated woman.

6. Learned ASJ while rejecting the anticipatory bail application has observed:- "Earlier the parties had also gone in the mediation center, but the matter could not be settled between them. The applicant no. 1 had earlier admitted in writing that besides various other dowry/istridhan articles, one pair of bangles of gold and the jewellery articles given to the complainant by her parents and the above cash amount of Rs.20,000/- are still in their possession andhe was also given an opportunity to return the same to the complainant, but he had failed to do so without furnishing ofany acceptable explanation."

7. Before this courtalso theparties were sentto Mediation butthematter could not be settled there. The opportunity to settle the matter was given before the court also but the parties have failed to arrive at any amicable settlement. The petitioner is working in Hotel Royal Plaza, New Delhi. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner could not work due to depression as such his services have been terminated w.e.f. 17.07.2013. No such termination letter is annexed with the bail application.

8. The mother ofthe petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned ASJ.

9. Considering the seriousness of allegations agamst the petitioner, present is not a fit case for the grant ofanticipatory bail. Thebailapplication is rejected.

OCTOBER 30,2013 kks VEENABIRBAL,J