Shalabh Gupta v. State

1. This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR no.215/2009, u/S 498A/406 IPG registered by P.S. Hauz Khas which is still pending at the investigation stage.

2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allegations made in the aforesaid FIR are actuated with ulterior considerations on account of past history of litigation and the matrimonial differences between the petitioner and the respondent/complainant.

3. In this regard, the learned senior counsel has contended that the complainant had lodged an FIR no.264/2007, u/S 376/506/34 IPG registered by P.S. Geeta Colony against the present 2011:DHC:18954 'f petitioner in respect of which the charge sheet has been filed in the Court of Competent jurisdiction. It has also been contended that the petitioner had already been enlarged on regular bail in the said case on 6.1.2009. The allegations made in that particular case were that the complainant was subjected to rape by the petitioner. It is further stated that after the FIR was got registered, the petitioner contracted marriage with the complainant on 4.7.2007 and thereafter, she filed a case for dowry against the petitioner with a view to extract money from him. In this regard, it has been contended that in the year 2007, the complainant had lodged a report with the SSP, Faridabad with regard to the offence under Section 406/498A which was subsequently compromised by the present petitioner and the present complaint is also nothing but the revival of the said allegations made by the complainant afresh with a view to harass the present petitioner.

4. The learned senior counsel has also pointed out that the respondent /complainant had lodged a report on 5.5.2009 with P.S. Flauz Khas stating that her husband was missing, which was followed by the complaint dated 16.6.2009 on the basis of which the present FIR was registered.

5. It has been contended by the learned senior counsel that while he was on regular ball in the case pertaining to Section 37 Cr.P.C. as well as the interim bail in the present case, the petitioner had not misused his liberty and there is no allegation of his having threatened the witnesses or creating any impediment in holding of a fair trial or investigation so far as the present case is concerned.

6. It has been contended that in the light of the aforesaid facts of the case, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail in the present case.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the bail application on the ground that the jewellery articles are yet to be recovered from the petitioner. It has also been stated by the complainant that she is not interested in the settlement of the matter and wants the petitioner to be punished for the offences he has committed in accordance with law.

8. So far as the State is concerned, the learned APP has contended that although the investigations are underway and certain jewellery articles are yet to be recovered from the present petitioner which are alleged have been handed over to the mother of the present petitioner by the complainant. This was denied by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

9. At this stage, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in order to show the bonafides of the petitioner has voiunteered to deposit a sum of lacs with the Registrar General of this Court. The said amount shaii be kept in an FDR by the petitioner subject to such orders as may be passed by the Trial Court at an appropriate stage. The aforesaid amount be deposited within four weeks.

10. Having regard to the totality of circumstances and the past background of litigation between the petitioner and the respondent /complainant, I feel that it is a fit case where the petitioner should be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ?25,000/- with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the lO/SHO. This shall be subject to the following conditions, which are a)that the petitioner shall join investigation, b) that the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the complainant or any other witnesses, c) that the petitioner shall furnish his mobile number and the present residential address to the 10 as well as to the complainant. d) the petitioner shall not leave the National Capital 11.

12. Region of Delhi without prior permission of the Trial Court. e) The benefit of this anticipatory bail would be available to the petitioner for a period of three months. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. Dasti.

AUGUST 17, 2011 RN V.K. SHALI,J