Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN.746/2017
SURESH JAIN Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Gaurav Chopraand Mr.Arindam
Ghose,Advocates
State with SI Suman,PS Prashant Vihar
SMTNEELU JAIN Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Gaurav Chopraand Mr.Arindam
Ghose,Advocates
Vihar C + BAIL APPLN.749/2017 y..T A T T A TKT Petitioner
KUNAL JAIN ^ ^ ^ Represented by: Mr.Gaurav Chopra and Mr.Arindam Ghose,Advocates
2018:DHC:8193 STATE OF NOT OF DELHI Respondent
Represented by: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,APP forthe
Vihar
ORDER o/o 30.08.2018 Cri.M.A.No.15044/2017 in Bail App.No.746/2017
Crl.M.A.No.15168/2017 in Bail App.No.747/2017
Ct1.M.A.No.15165/2017 in Bail Apd.No.749/2017
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioners are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband respectively of the complainant in case FIR No.190/2017 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG and Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations of the complainant against the petitioners are of continuous harassment for demand of dowry as well as by the petitioners boosting of their high standards and affluentliving style.
2. Marriage between the parties was performed on 15"" October,2010 and thereafter the daughter was born on 15^'' July,2011. The complaintfor ^ the firsttime was lodged by the complainant as noted above in January, 2017 i.e.almost morethan[6] years ofthe marriage. Thoughthe charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Acthas been filed againstpetitioners Neelu Jain and Kunal Jain as stated by the Investigating Officer however no approval of arrest ofthe two petitioners has been taken from the Competent Authority till date. BAILAPPLN.746/2017,747/2017& 749/2017 Page2of[3] T-
3. The allegations against Suresh Jain, the father-in-law besides the one against Neelu Jain and Kunal Jain are that one day when the complainant was inside her room and looking toward her injuries,Suresh Jain entered the room,misbehaved with her and inserted hisfinger in her vagina.
4. Learned APP for the State submits that after investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
5. Considering the nature of allegations and also the fact that the ^ complainantleftthe matrimonialhome on 28""October,2016,the complaint was filed with the said allegations only in January,2017,this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. It is, therefore, directed that in the event ofarrest,the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of?25,000/- each with one surety bond each to the satisfaction ofthe Arresting Officer/SLIO concerned/concerned Courtfurther subject to the condition that the petitioners will not leave the country withoutthe prior permission ofthe Court concerned and in case ofchange of residential address, the same will be intimated to the Court concerned by way ofan affidavit. V- '■ 6. Petitions are disposed of. Crl.M.A.Nos.15042-43/2017 in Bail Ar)P.No.746/2Q17 Crl.M.A.Nos. 15166-67/2017 in Bail Ann.No.747/2017 Crl.M.A.Nos.15163-64/2017 in Bail App.No.749/2017 Dismissed as infmctuous.
MUKTA GUPTA, J. AUGUST 30, 2018/m««ito BAIL APPLN. 746/2017, 747/2017 & 749/2017 Page 3 of[3]