Full Text
Translation output
#3&4
% 12.09.2011
Present: Mr.Narender Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the respondent/State along with ASl
Kailash, P.S. Lodhi Colony.
Mr. A.S. Maini,Advocate for the complainant.
+Bail Appln. No.1101/201
+Bail Appln. No.1139/2010 & CrI.M.A. No.2744/2011
Sachin Nanda, Geeta Nanda and Deepali Nanda, the petitioners herein vide their respective applications are seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.86/2010 registered under Section 498A/406 IPG at P.S. Lodhi
Colony.
Petitioner Sachin Nanda is the husband of the connplainant, whereas
Geeta Nanda and Deepali Nanda are mother-in-law and elder sister-in-law of the complainant. Allegations against the petitioners are that they have harassed and treated the complainant with cruelty pursuant to their
^^emand for dowry and they have also misappropriated her dowry articles.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the allegations in the
FIR are false. Complainant was never ill-treated in her matrimonial home.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that complainant was married to Sachin Nanda on 24.11.2009. Thereafter, Sachin Nanda and complainant proceeded to Gangtok where both of them lived together till end of April, 2010 when the complainant left the matrimonial home and returned to her parental home. It Is submitted that during that period also, the complainant had been visiting Delhi off and on. It is further
2011:DHC:6882 submitted that tine dowry articles of the complainant have already be^^ returned. The petitioners have joined investigation and they undertake to cooperate with the investigation In future also.
Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the applications. He submits that some of the dowry articles have been returned, but the jewellery articles are yet to be returned. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant was harassed and treated very badly and because of the ill-treatment, she even had to abort her child. It is argued that the petitioners have even misled the court by offering to take the complainant . back to her matrimonial home and two days later she was forced to leave the matrimonial house, It is submitted that even during those two days, the complainant was ill-treated.
Learned APP submits that though some of the articles have been returned to the complainant, she claims that some jewellery articles are yet to be returned by the petitioners. She further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary to reach at the bottom of the truth and also to recover the remaining jewellery articles. Thus, learned APP b has strongly opposed the applications.
I haye considered the rival contentions and perused the record.
Admittedly the petitioners have joined investigation and they are ready to join investigation as and when required. Dowry articles have been returned.
However, there is a dispute between the parties that all the jewellery articles have not been returned. This, obviously, is a question of evidence and, at this stage, it cannot be determined who is telling the truth.
Taking into account overall facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offence, Iallow the applications for grant of anticipatory bail and direct that in the event of arrest of the petitioners or anyone ofthem in case FIR No.86/2010 registered under Section 498A/406 IPC at P.S.
Lodhi Colony, he/she shall be released on bail in the event of he/she respectively furnishing a personal bond in the sum of? 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/concerned Magistrate. This is subject to the petitioners joining and
^cooperating with the investigation as and when required.
Applications are disposed of.
(AJIT BHTAmHOKE)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 pst
% 12.09.2011
Present: Mr.Narender Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the respondent/State along with ASl
Kailash, P.S. Lodhi Colony.
Mr. A.S. Maini,Advocate for the complainant.
+Bail Appln. No.1101/201
+Bail Appln. No.1139/2010 & CrI.M.A. No.2744/2011
Sachin Nanda, Geeta Nanda and Deepali Nanda, the petitioners herein vide their respective applications are seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.86/2010 registered under Section 498A/406 IPG at P.S. Lodhi
Colony.
Petitioner Sachin Nanda is the husband of the connplainant, whereas
Geeta Nanda and Deepali Nanda are mother-in-law and elder sister-in-law of the complainant. Allegations against the petitioners are that they have harassed and treated the complainant with cruelty pursuant to their
^^emand for dowry and they have also misappropriated her dowry articles.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the allegations in the
FIR are false. Complainant was never ill-treated in her matrimonial home.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that complainant was married to Sachin Nanda on 24.11.2009. Thereafter, Sachin Nanda and complainant proceeded to Gangtok where both of them lived together till end of April, 2010 when the complainant left the matrimonial home and returned to her parental home. It Is submitted that during that period also, the complainant had been visiting Delhi off and on. It is further
2011:DHC:6882 submitted that tine dowry articles of the complainant have already be^^ returned. The petitioners have joined investigation and they undertake to cooperate with the investigation In future also.
Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the applications. He submits that some of the dowry articles have been returned, but the jewellery articles are yet to be returned. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant was harassed and treated very badly and because of the ill-treatment, she even had to abort her child. It is argued that the petitioners have even misled the court by offering to take the complainant . back to her matrimonial home and two days later she was forced to leave the matrimonial house, It is submitted that even during those two days, the complainant was ill-treated.
Learned APP submits that though some of the articles have been returned to the complainant, she claims that some jewellery articles are yet to be returned by the petitioners. She further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary to reach at the bottom of the truth and also to recover the remaining jewellery articles. Thus, learned APP b has strongly opposed the applications.
I haye considered the rival contentions and perused the record.
Admittedly the petitioners have joined investigation and they are ready to join investigation as and when required. Dowry articles have been returned.
However, there is a dispute between the parties that all the jewellery articles have not been returned. This, obviously, is a question of evidence and, at this stage, it cannot be determined who is telling the truth.
Taking into account overall facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offence, Iallow the applications for grant of anticipatory bail and direct that in the event of arrest of the petitioners or anyone ofthem in case FIR No.86/2010 registered under Section 498A/406 IPC at P.S.
Lodhi Colony, he/she shall be released on bail in the event of he/she respectively furnishing a personal bond in the sum of? 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/concerned Magistrate. This is subject to the petitioners joining and
^cooperating with the investigation as and when required.
Applications are disposed of.
(AJIT BHTAmHOKE)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 pst
JUDGMENT