Full Text
Translation output
Ni
% 01.06.2011
Present: Ms. S. Chauhan, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. M.P. Singh, AFP for the State with W/SI R.P. Meena, P.S. CAW Cell, Nanakpura.
+ Crl. M.C. No. 1889/2011
*
Petitioner is wife of respondent No. 2. On the complaint of petitioner, FIR No. 157/2010 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IFC was registered at the Police Station "Crime Women Cell", Nanakpura, Delhi. Respondent No. 2 had filed an application seeking anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge
(ADJ). Vide order dated 4^ February, 2011 learned ADJ directed the parties to appear before 'Mediation Center' on 5^^ February, 2011 and matter was listed for 25^^ March, 2011. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 was protected from arrest. However, petitioner and respondent No. 2 failed to arrive at an amicable settlement.
Learned ADJ vide order dated 25^^ March, 2011 has granted interim anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2, subject to his furnishing personal bond of ^25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, for a period of three months i.e. upto 2^^ July, 2011.
2011:DHC:12508
Aggrieved by this order, petitioner has filed this petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has vehemently contended that grant of anticipatory bail by a court in exercise of its power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. amounts to interference in the investigation and same cannot be invoked during the investigation, since an accused has to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons who may be involved in
/ the crime. Thus, learned ADJ could not have granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2. Reliance has been placed on Adri
Dharan Das vs. State of West Bengal (2005) 4 SCC 303.
I have perused the above
Present: Ms. S. Chauhan, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. M.P. Singh, AFP for the State with W/SI R.P. Meena, P.S. CAW Cell, Nanakpura.
+ Crl. M.C. No. 1889/2011
*
Petitioner is wife of respondent No. 2. On the complaint of petitioner, FIR No. 157/2010 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IFC was registered at the Police Station "Crime Women Cell", Nanakpura, Delhi. Respondent No. 2 had filed an application seeking anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge
(ADJ). Vide order dated 4^ February, 2011 learned ADJ directed the parties to appear before 'Mediation Center' on 5^^ February, 2011 and matter was listed for 25^^ March, 2011. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 was protected from arrest. However, petitioner and respondent No. 2 failed to arrive at an amicable settlement.
Learned ADJ vide order dated 25^^ March, 2011 has granted interim anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2, subject to his furnishing personal bond of ^25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, for a period of three months i.e. upto 2^^ July, 2011.
2011:DHC:12508
Aggrieved by this order, petitioner has filed this petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has vehemently contended that grant of anticipatory bail by a court in exercise of its power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. amounts to interference in the investigation and same cannot be invoked during the investigation, since an accused has to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons who may be involved in
/ the crime. Thus, learned ADJ could not have granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2. Reliance has been placed on Adri
Dharan Das vs. State of West Bengal (2005) 4 SCC 303.
I have perused the above
JUDGMENT
. It nowhere provides that anticipatory bail under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be granted under any circumstances. Supreme Court has observed that ordinarily court will not interfere with the investigation of crime or with the arrest of accused in cognizable offences. In other words, in
I appropriate cases the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be exercised. In the facts of this case, I do not find any jurisdiction to quash the impugned order in exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Petition is dismissed.
Crl. M.A. Nos. 6746-48/2011
Disposed of as infrucutous.
June 01, 2011 rb
I appropriate cases the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be exercised. In the facts of this case, I do not find any jurisdiction to quash the impugned order in exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Petition is dismissed.
Crl. M.A. Nos. 6746-48/2011
Disposed of as infrucutous.
June 01, 2011 rb
A.K. PATHAK, J.