Full Text
Translation output
/o HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2179/2011
MAN1SHA GANGAHAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Arman Sharma & Mr. Shimpy Sharma, Advocate
CRL.M.C. 2179/2011
MAN1SHA GANGAHAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Arman Sharma & Mr. Shimpy Sharma, Advocate
VERSUS
SAMIR BEDI & ORS. ..... Respondent Mr. B.T. Singh & 1\1r. A.S. Anand, Advocates for R-1.
Through
Through
CORAM:
Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with ASI Sarita Rathi, PS CWC.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
27.07.2011 By this petition, the Petitioner seeks cancellation ofbail on the ground that the Respondent No.1 has defied the order dated 14th May, 2010 granting bail to him. As per the petition, the Petitioner contended that the
Respondent No.1 was granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent condition such as payment ofRs. 10 lacs as lump sum to the Petitioner, a security of ~
5 lacs to be deposited in court and an ad-hoc monthly maintenance of ~
30,000/- to the Complainant.
On a notice being issued, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 has entered appearance.. He states that as per the order dated 14th May, 2010, 2011:DHC:10575 two conditions were imposed on the Respondent while granting bail. One was giving of a lump sum amount of ~10 lacs to the Complainant and secondly providing a monthly maintenance of ~30,000/- to the Complainant from the date of filing of the complaint which resulted in the registration of the FIR in question. No other condition was imposed. The payment of ~ 10 lacs and 30,000/- per month was also without prejudice to the rights and contentions ofthe Respondent herein and subject to be adjusted.
According to the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 both these conditions have been duly complied with. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 the averment of learned counsel for the Petitioner that he was granted bail on a stringent condition that he would furnish a security of~ 5 lacs to ensure his presence as and when required by the Court in para 3 of the petition is misstatement of facts. A perusal of the order- sheet shows that this Court was very clear and it had not imposed any condition of security of~ 5 lacs. It had only taken note that the Petitioner had been required to furnish a security of ~ 5 lacs to ensure his presence as and when required by the Court trying the complaint under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act(in short 'the Act') preferred by his wife. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 states that the Respondent had furnished this security before the Court trying the complaint under 'the
Act'. However, after the disposal ofthe application under Section 12 of 'the
Act' the Respondent has withdrawn the said security amount. Learned counsel for the Respondent however assures that as and when the Petitioner would be required before the Trial Court, he would be present.
From the perusal of the order dated 14th May, 2010, I fmd there is no non-compliance as it the admitted case of the Petitioner that she has been paid a lump sum ~ 10 lacs and is being paid a monthly maintenance of ~
30,0001- per month by bankers' cheque/draft.
I find no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed.
JULY 27,2011 'dk' t~~ MUKTA GUPTA,J
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
27.07.2011 By this petition, the Petitioner seeks cancellation ofbail on the ground that the Respondent No.1 has defied the order dated 14th May, 2010 granting bail to him. As per the petition, the Petitioner contended that the
Respondent No.1 was granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent condition such as payment ofRs. 10 lacs as lump sum to the Petitioner, a security of ~
5 lacs to be deposited in court and an ad-hoc monthly maintenance of ~
30,000/- to the Complainant.
On a notice being issued, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 has entered appearance.. He states that as per the order dated 14th May, 2010, 2011:DHC:10575 two conditions were imposed on the Respondent while granting bail. One was giving of a lump sum amount of ~10 lacs to the Complainant and secondly providing a monthly maintenance of ~30,000/- to the Complainant from the date of filing of the complaint which resulted in the registration of the FIR in question. No other condition was imposed. The payment of ~ 10 lacs and 30,000/- per month was also without prejudice to the rights and contentions ofthe Respondent herein and subject to be adjusted.
According to the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 both these conditions have been duly complied with. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 the averment of learned counsel for the Petitioner that he was granted bail on a stringent condition that he would furnish a security of~ 5 lacs to ensure his presence as and when required by the Court in para 3 of the petition is misstatement of facts. A perusal of the order- sheet shows that this Court was very clear and it had not imposed any condition of security of~ 5 lacs. It had only taken note that the Petitioner had been required to furnish a security of ~ 5 lacs to ensure his presence as and when required by the Court trying the complaint under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act(in short 'the Act') preferred by his wife. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 states that the Respondent had furnished this security before the Court trying the complaint under 'the
Act'. However, after the disposal ofthe application under Section 12 of 'the
Act' the Respondent has withdrawn the said security amount. Learned counsel for the Respondent however assures that as and when the Petitioner would be required before the Trial Court, he would be present.
From the perusal of the order dated 14th May, 2010, I fmd there is no non-compliance as it the admitted case of the Petitioner that she has been paid a lump sum ~ 10 lacs and is being paid a monthly maintenance of ~
30,0001- per month by bankers' cheque/draft.
I find no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed.
JULY 27,2011 'dk' t~~ MUKTA GUPTA,J
JUDGMENT