Deep Shikha v. State (NCT of Delhi)

(10) BAIL APPLN. 776/2011 MADHU AND ANR. Petitioners Through Mr.A.K.Tripathi, Adv.

VERSUS

STATE (N.C.T. DELHI) Respondent Through Mr.Mukesh Gupta, APP given) (11) BAIL APPLN. 777/2011 VINOD PORWAL Petitioner versus STATE (N.C.T. DELHI) Respondent Through Mr.Naveen Sharma, APP SI Rakesh Kumar, P.S. Bhajanpura. given) (12) BAIL APPLN. 778/2011 JAGDEEP SINGH BHADORIA AND ANR. Petitioners 2011:DHC:7070

VERSUS

JUSTICE V.K. SHALI ORDER V % 10.08.2011

1. These are four petitions filed by the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No.53/2011, u/S 120- B/380/420 IPG registered by P.S. Bhajan Pura.

2. The allegations against the petitioner/Deep Shikha are that she was married to one Praveen Kumar and thereafter, she contracted marriage with one Sunil Kumar who happened to be the son of the complainant.

3. It is alleged by the complainant i.e. Nepal Singh Shishodia that ^ the present petitioner had taken away the jewellery articles from her residence. On the basis of the said complaint, a case u/S 420/380/120B IPG has been registered against Madhu, Kamlesh (Masi), Vinod Porwal alleged to be a family friend and Jagdeep Singh Bhadoria, Asha Bhadoria (parents of the petitioner/Deep Shikha).

4. I have heard the learned APP as well as the learned counsel for V the complainant and perused the status report.

5. So far as the learned APP is concerned, he has not opposed the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that this is essentially a family dispute between the husband and the wife as well as the father in law of the petitioner/ Deep Shikha.

6. It has been stated that so far as Sunil, son of the complainant is concerned, he is residing with his wife Deep Shikha. He states since the petitioners are co-operating with the investigation, he has no objection in case they are enlarged on anticipatory bail.

7. So far as the learned counsel for the complainant is concerned, he has raised three objections with regard to the grant of anticipatory bail, which are as follows:a) That as per the documents on record, admittedly, it is established that Deep Shikha has contracted a second marriage and therefore, it is urged that straight away she should be punished for the offence of bigamy and nothing remains to be done about holding of a trial. b) The second submission is that the power of granting of anticipatory bail is a concurrent power both with the Court of Sessions as well as with the High Court. It has been stated since the petitioner had gone to V V the Court of Sessions for grant of anticipatory bail once, which was refused by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner ought not to have filed the present petition. It is contended that the second petition for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable. c) The third submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant is that the jewellery articles which were allegedly taken by her from the residence of her father-in-law are yet to be recovered from the petitioner/ Deep Shikha.

8. So far as the first submission with regard to the punishment of the petitioner / Deep Shikha for an offence of forgery is concerned, I fail to understand by what logic as to how the petitioner / Deep Shikha can be punished without holding the trial. This is an elementary concept of law that a person cannot be punished without holding a trial in accordance with the established procedure of law. Such a submission being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner clearly shows that he is ignorant about the elementaries of law.

9. So far as the second submission with regard to the maintainability of the present petition for grant of anticipatory 'v bail is concerned, no doubt the power of granting anticipatory bail is a concurrent power both with the Court of Sessions as well as with the High Court yet the mere fact that the petitioners have already preferred an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions and the consequent rejection of the application thereof does not prima facie mean that the second application is not maintainable. The common practice which has been prevailing in the Courts of Delhi is that even if an application for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected by the Court of Sessions, even then, on there being a change in circumstances, the second application for grant of anticipatory bail is maintainable before the High Court on the same facts and situation. This could be said to have a relook on the order passed by the learned Court of Sessions as well as having a fresh consideration of the matter by a superior Court.

10. It is only after the rejection of the second anticipatory bail application by the High Court that the question of successive bail application being not maintainable would arise. So far as the successive bail application is concerned, it has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Kalyan Chand Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav AIR 2005 SC 921 that the same is also maintainable, if there is any change in the circumstances. V Therefore, I prima facie feel that this objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant is without any merit.