Full Text
Translation output
If $-62 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 624/2012
NARENDER SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr.L.S.Sani, Advocate.
BAIL APPLN. 624/2012
NARENDER SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr.L.S.Sani, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Ms.Fizani Husain,APP.
Complainant in personwith her counsel.
Through: Ms.Fizani Husain,APP.
Complainant in personwith her counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
07.05.2012 CrI.M.A.No.5617/2012 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to alljust exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Bail Appln. 624/2012 This is a petition under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail in case FIR
No. 402/2011, under Sections 498A/406 IPC, P.S. K.N.Katju Marg. The FIR came to be registered against the petitioner and his family members on the complaint of his wife Gurmeet Kaur. The couple was married on 8.11.2009 and has a male child out of the wedlock, who is in custody of the complainant. The allegations against the petitioner and his parents and other family members are that they had been demanding more and more dowry, articles and cash from the
\ 2012:DHC:9707 complainant and her parents and have been subjecting the complainant to harassment and cruelty. There are specific allegations ofdemand ofRs. 2 lakhs on different occasions and also a HondaCity Car and in the absence of fulfillment of the same, the threats to eliminate the complainant. The complainant present also alleges that she has not been returned her jewellery ornaments by the petitioner and his parents.
Onthe other hand, the plea of thepetitioner as is usual in such cases, is that she had taken away the jewellery ornaments while leaving matrimonial home.
Having regard to the nature of allegations and the way, she was thrown out ofthe matrimonial house, the prima facie assertions of the petitioner seem to be unbelievable. It is also noted that two Additional Sessions Judges in the previous bail applications filed by the petitioner for anticipatory bail have also so observed in their orders dated 6.1.2012 and 18.4.2012. There is no change of any circumstances after the dismissal of the two applications for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by learned Additional Session Judges. In view of the above and having regard to the serious nature of the allegations of cruelty, harassment etc., thepetitioner is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Hencedismissed.
LL. MEHTA,J MAY 07, 2012 V 2012:DHC:9707
07.05.2012 CrI.M.A.No.5617/2012 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to alljust exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Bail Appln. 624/2012 This is a petition under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail in case FIR
No. 402/2011, under Sections 498A/406 IPC, P.S. K.N.Katju Marg. The FIR came to be registered against the petitioner and his family members on the complaint of his wife Gurmeet Kaur. The couple was married on 8.11.2009 and has a male child out of the wedlock, who is in custody of the complainant. The allegations against the petitioner and his parents and other family members are that they had been demanding more and more dowry, articles and cash from the
\ 2012:DHC:9707 complainant and her parents and have been subjecting the complainant to harassment and cruelty. There are specific allegations ofdemand ofRs. 2 lakhs on different occasions and also a HondaCity Car and in the absence of fulfillment of the same, the threats to eliminate the complainant. The complainant present also alleges that she has not been returned her jewellery ornaments by the petitioner and his parents.
Onthe other hand, the plea of thepetitioner as is usual in such cases, is that she had taken away the jewellery ornaments while leaving matrimonial home.
Having regard to the nature of allegations and the way, she was thrown out ofthe matrimonial house, the prima facie assertions of the petitioner seem to be unbelievable. It is also noted that two Additional Sessions Judges in the previous bail applications filed by the petitioner for anticipatory bail have also so observed in their orders dated 6.1.2012 and 18.4.2012. There is no change of any circumstances after the dismissal of the two applications for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by learned Additional Session Judges. In view of the above and having regard to the serious nature of the allegations of cruelty, harassment etc., thepetitioner is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Hencedismissed.
LL. MEHTA,J MAY 07, 2012 V 2012:DHC:9707
JUDGMENT