Full Text
Translation output
-r $-^28 & 30 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 438/2013
SALONIBHATIA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Baldev Raj, Ms. Priya Singh, Ms. Shikha Tyagi, Advocates
BAIL APPLN. 438/2013
SALONIBHATIA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Baldev Raj, Ms. Priya Singh, Ms. Shikha Tyagi, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE &ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional PublicProsecutor for respondent -
State
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional PublicProsecutor for respondent -
State
BAIL APPLN. 1347/2013
SATINDER KAUR@ PINKI & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Baldev Raj, Ms. Priya Singh, Ms. Shikha Tyagi, Advocates
SATINDER KAUR@ PINKI & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Baldev Raj, Ms. Priya Singh, Ms. Shikha Tyagi, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutorfor respondent-
State
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutorfor respondent-
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
19.08.2013 Inabove captioned two applications, petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in FIRNo.73/2013 under Sections 454/380/120B/34 of/PC registered at
P.S. Rajouri Garden, Delhi.
Petitioner in the above captioned first application is the daughter- in-law of the first informant of the FIR in question. Petitioner-Mw^/er
BAILAPPLN. 438 &1347of2013 ~ Page 1 2013:DHC:7033
Kaur and Amandeep of above captioned second application are the mother and brother of petitionQV-Saloni. Since these two applications pertain to same FIR andthe grounds onwhich pre-arrest bail is sought are identical, so, both these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
While entertaining pre-arrest bail application of petitioner-5'<3/o?2/, the parties were referred to mediation centre as the subject matter of the
FIR in question springs out of a matrimonial discord. Petitioners had purportedly barged into the house of first-informant and petitioners had allegedly stolen?30 lac in cash and precious jewellery of first informant was found missing. Unfortunately, efforts to get the matrimonial dispute and the subject matter of this FIR mediated upon have proved futile.
Pertinently, petitioner-6'a/o«/complaint under Section 12 of The
Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is pending and the incident in question relates to proceedings arising out of The
Protection of Women From Domestic ViolenceAct, 2005.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the FIR in question and the stand taken by petitioner-fe/owz in proceedings under The
Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, I find that this is not a fit case for custodial interrogation of petitioners. However, petitioners shall join the investigation and when called by the
Investigating Officerof this caseby notice in writing.
Without commenting on the merits of this case, the interim orders of15"^ March, 2013 and 29"^ July, 2013 are made absolute. In the event of arrest, petitioners be admitted to bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ^"30,000/- each with one local surety of the like
BAIL APPLN. 438&1347of2013 Page2 ^ 1" amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer concerned. Needless to say that if petitioners do not join the investigation, then the State would be at liberty to get this order revoked.
Both these applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge AUGUST 19,2013 s mm BAIL APPLN. 438&1347of2013 Page 3
19.08.2013 Inabove captioned two applications, petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in FIRNo.73/2013 under Sections 454/380/120B/34 of/PC registered at
P.S. Rajouri Garden, Delhi.
Petitioner in the above captioned first application is the daughter- in-law of the first informant of the FIR in question. Petitioner-Mw^/er
BAILAPPLN. 438 &1347of2013 ~ Page 1 2013:DHC:7033
Kaur and Amandeep of above captioned second application are the mother and brother of petitionQV-Saloni. Since these two applications pertain to same FIR andthe grounds onwhich pre-arrest bail is sought are identical, so, both these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
While entertaining pre-arrest bail application of petitioner-5'<3/o?2/, the parties were referred to mediation centre as the subject matter of the
FIR in question springs out of a matrimonial discord. Petitioners had purportedly barged into the house of first-informant and petitioners had allegedly stolen?30 lac in cash and precious jewellery of first informant was found missing. Unfortunately, efforts to get the matrimonial dispute and the subject matter of this FIR mediated upon have proved futile.
Pertinently, petitioner-6'a/o«/complaint under Section 12 of The
Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is pending and the incident in question relates to proceedings arising out of The
Protection of Women From Domestic ViolenceAct, 2005.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the FIR in question and the stand taken by petitioner-fe/owz in proceedings under The
Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, I find that this is not a fit case for custodial interrogation of petitioners. However, petitioners shall join the investigation and when called by the
Investigating Officerof this caseby notice in writing.
Without commenting on the merits of this case, the interim orders of15"^ March, 2013 and 29"^ July, 2013 are made absolute. In the event of arrest, petitioners be admitted to bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ^"30,000/- each with one local surety of the like
BAIL APPLN. 438&1347of2013 Page2 ^ 1" amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer concerned. Needless to say that if petitioners do not join the investigation, then the State would be at liberty to get this order revoked.
Both these applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge AUGUST 19,2013 s mm BAIL APPLN. 438&1347of2013 Page 3
JUDGMENT