Full Text
BAIL APPLN. 25/2013
GUNJAN KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr. DharamDev, Advocate.
Through:
URMILA DEVI
Through:
Through:
Respondent Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the State with ASI Saroj Bala, PS Amar
Colony.
Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate for the complainant with complainant in person.
Petitioner Mr. Dharam Dev, Advocate.
Respondent Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the State with ASI Saroj Bala, PS Amar
Colony.
Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate for the complainant with complainant in person.
07.08.2013
ORDER
1. Vide this common orderI shall dispose of an application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 filed by thepetitioners 2013:DHC:7648: U Who are husband and mother-in-law ofthe complainant.
2 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the marriage was solemnized on 30'^ April, 2005. It was asimple marriage. They lived together as husband and wife up to June, 2011 when the complainant left the matrimonial home without any rhyme and reason. No childhas been bom out ofthe wedlock. On the instigation ofthe family members the complainant has lodged a false complaint. The respondenthas filed petitionunder Section9of the Hindu Marriage Act but the complainant has failed to appear. She has also failed to join the mediation proceedings when the matter was referred to mediation cell by the learned Sessions Judge, Saket. Instead an unreasonable demand ofRs.25,00,000/- has been raised for settling the dispute. The petitioners have already joined the investigation, as such, they be released on bail.
3. On the other haiid, it is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor of the State that since istridhan items are yet to be recovered, assuch the petitioner beputtoterms.
4. In order to explore the possibility of settlement, the matter was also referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre but the same could not be settled. The petitioner expressed his willingness to return the articles lying in the premises to the complainant and as such the complainant was directed to go along with the investigating office of the case for recovery of istridhan articles. However, it is reported that complainant did not take back anyof the articles.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has joined the investigation. Und^ the circumstances, it is ordered that sutyect to deposit of Rs.7,00,bo0/- in the name of Registrar General of this Court by way of FDR within three weeks, which will be subject to final outcome ofthJ case, petitioners be released on anticipatory bail till the date offilingpfcharge sheet subjectto the conditionthat mthe event ofhis arrest; j
(i) They shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
(ii) They shklljoin investigation as and when required.
(iii) They siall not contact any prosecution witness nor will tamper |vith evidence.
(iv) They shall flimish their addresses as well as their ji mobile numbersto the InvestigatingOfficer. ji Copy be given!!dasti.
AUGUST 07,2013
M. SUNITA GUPTA,!