Sanjay Gupta v. State NCT of Delhi

1. This is an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C moved by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner got married with the complainant on 19.04.2000. After the marriage, the spouses started residing at House No.2800-B, First Floor, Gali No.207, Vishram Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi, the parental 2013:DHC:4094 house of the petitioner as petitioner is the only son of his parents. In the year 2004, upon the complainant’s insistence, the petitioner and complainant started residing separately at the second floor of the aforesaid premises. In February, 2009 the mother of the complainant was in need of some money and proposed to sell the second floor of premises No.RZ-62, Param Puri, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner’s mother purchased the said property and petitioner also purchased the roof rights of the said property, as per the desire of the complainant, in her name. However, immediately after the said purchase, the complaint insisted and pressurised the petitioner to shift along with her to the second floor of the purchased property. The petitioner had to yield to the demand of the complainant and the spouses shifted to the second floor of Uttam Nagar property with all their belongings.

3. The spouses got a male child and the petitioner thought that the onset of the child would usher in an era of happiness but then after a few days the child was diagnosed with disorder of Down Syndrome. The complainant turned the petitioner and the child out of the house in February, 2011 and ever since then, the petitioner along with her child has been residing at his parental house. The complainant had earlier filed a complaint with CAW Cell Dwarka on 01.10.201 and again on 28.12.2011, the complainant filed a complaint with CAW Cell, Dwarka. The allegations levelled in the second complaint are after thought as almost all the averments made in the complaint are absent in the first complaint dated 01.10.2010. These allegations do pertain to a period prior to 01.10.2010.

4. Ms. Sumitra Devi, mother of the complainant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner and his parents in relation to the residential premises at RZ-62, Uttam Nagar. The complainant has also filed a petition under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner has served the complainant with a legal notice for return of his personal belongings. It was submitted that no articles belonging to the complainant is lying with the petitioner or his family members inasmuch as when the legal notice was served upon the complainant for return of articles lying at Uttam Nagar, she sent a reply claiming that all these articles belonged to her and therefore she is not liable to return the same. It was alleged by the complainant that a car was given in dowry. However the same is factually incorrect inasmuch as the car was purchased by father of the complainant in the name of his partnership firm, M/s S.K. Embroidery and he himself sold the same as far back as on 01.03.2007. The petitioner has roots in the society; he has joined the investigation. There are no chances of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, as such he be released on bail.

5. The application is opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that a sum of Rs.20 lakhs was incurred in the marriage. A Santro car was also given. Since the very beginning of marriage, her husband and in-laws used to harass and taunt her for brining less dowry. On 12.03.2008, there was altercation between her and her husband. In the meantime her in-laws also came. Her husband pushed her on the stairs as a result of which she fell down and sustained injuries. She was admitted in Maharaja Agarsen Hospital. In the month of February 2009, her husband asked her father to purchase a house in the name of his mother, Smt. Omwati but he was not in a position to purchase a house. Accordingly, he persuaded her mother to transfer the house which was in her name in the name of her mother-in-law, Smt. Omwati on 26.2.2009. Thereafter petitioner deserted her and started living with his parents.

6. On 03.09.2010 she was sent back to her parents house by her husband as he was badly in need of Rs. 5 lakhs and hence asked her to demand from her father a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. Her father expressed his inability but paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to her husband. Again demand of Rs.[4] lakhs was made for purchase of car which father of complainant was unable to fulfil. On 23.12.2011, complainant had gone to her parent’s house and in her absence her husband came to the house at Parampuri, Uttam Nagar and took out all articles lying the said house and put the same in a tempo. As he was about to go away from there, in the meantime, one of the neighbours informed her about the incident and she came back and with the help of police got the articles replaced in the house. Dowry articles are yet to be recovered; custodial interrogation is required, as such bail application was opposed. However, during the course of arguments it was submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that bills of Rs. 2 lakhs submitted by the complainant has been verified. The house was also transferred in the name of the mother of the petitioner for which civil suit is pending, as such the petitioner be put to terms in case he is released on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without prejudice to his rights, on merits of the case, he is ready to deposit some amount. Under the circumstances it is ordered that without prejudice to the rights of the parties, a sum of Rs.[5] lakhs be deposited by way of FDR in the name of Registrar General of this Court which will be subject to the decision of the case. Subject to deposit of this amount, it is ordered that in the event of his arrest:

(i) Petitioner be admitted to bail on his executing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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

(iii) He shall furnish his address as well as his mobile number to the Investigating Officer.

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

SUNITA GUPTA, J AUGUST 19, 2013 as