Full Text
Translation output
i , HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 2206/2016
• , . - , , , >
PUSHPA .....Petitioner Representedby: Mr. Ajay Sharma,Ms. Radhika SKarma, Ms. Sakshi Shaima, " , Mr. B.K. Malhotra, Advs.
BAIL APPLN. 2206/2016
• , . - , , , >
PUSHPA .....Petitioner Representedby: Mr. Ajay Sharma,Ms. Radhika SKarma, Ms. Sakshi Shaima, " , Mr. B.K. Malhotra, Advs.
VERSUS
STATE ' Respondent Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP with ASI Lachhi Ram PS
Dabri.
Mr. S.K. Balam, Adv. for _ complainant.
' + Represented by:
Dabri.
Mr. S.K. Balam, Adv. for _ complainant.
' + Represented by:
BAIL APPLN. 2461/2016
MAHESHKUMAR :
Represented by;
MAHESHKUMAR :
Represented by;
VERSUS
STATE
Represented by: .....Petitioner Mr. Ajay Sharma, Ms. Radhika Shaima, Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Mr. B.K. Malhotra, Advs.
Respondent Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP with ASI Lachhi Ram PS Dabri.
Mr. S.K. Balam, Adv. for complainant.
Represented by: .....Petitioner Mr. Ajay Sharma, Ms. Radhika Shaima, Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Mr. B.K. Malhotra, Advs.
Respondent Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP with ASI Lachhi Ram PS Dabri.
Mr. S.K. Balam, Adv. for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
07.12.2017 By these two applications the petitioners Pushpa and Mahesh Kumar seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.443/2016 under Sections
'498A/406/313/354/34 IPG registered at PS Dabri.
BAILAPPLNs. 2206/2016 & 2461/2016 page 1 of2 2017:DHC:8398 i
The allegations of the complainant in the FIR are of harassment and torture by the in-laws for demand ofdowry. It is further alleged that on 8^'^
October, 2015 she was beaten by the in-laws and they kicked her in her abdomen due to which she had to face an abortion.
Learned APP on perusing the record submits that the reason of miscarriage is not mentioned in the medical papers received. No complaint was lodged on the date of incident and only on 2"'^ November, 2015 a complaint was lodged with the CAW Cell.
Petitioner Pushpa is the married sister-in-law living separately and is on the family way. Further it is the case ofthe petitioners that on the day of the alleged incident both Pushpa and Mahesh were not in the house for the reason Pushpa had gone to give her examination and Mahesh Kumar accompanied her whichfacthas not been investigated by the Statetill date.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. It is therefore directed that in the event of arrest the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ?25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/ SHO concerned, further subject to the condition that they will join the investigation as and when
-directed by the investigating officer and will not leave the country without the prior permission ofthe Court concerned.
Petitions are disposed of Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
DECEMBER 07, 2017 'ga' BAIL APPLNs. 2206/2016 & 2461/2016 page 2 of2
2017:DHC:8398
07.12.2017 By these two applications the petitioners Pushpa and Mahesh Kumar seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.443/2016 under Sections
'498A/406/313/354/34 IPG registered at PS Dabri.
BAILAPPLNs. 2206/2016 & 2461/2016 page 1 of2 2017:DHC:8398 i
The allegations of the complainant in the FIR are of harassment and torture by the in-laws for demand ofdowry. It is further alleged that on 8^'^
October, 2015 she was beaten by the in-laws and they kicked her in her abdomen due to which she had to face an abortion.
Learned APP on perusing the record submits that the reason of miscarriage is not mentioned in the medical papers received. No complaint was lodged on the date of incident and only on 2"'^ November, 2015 a complaint was lodged with the CAW Cell.
Petitioner Pushpa is the married sister-in-law living separately and is on the family way. Further it is the case ofthe petitioners that on the day of the alleged incident both Pushpa and Mahesh were not in the house for the reason Pushpa had gone to give her examination and Mahesh Kumar accompanied her whichfacthas not been investigated by the Statetill date.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. It is therefore directed that in the event of arrest the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ?25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/ SHO concerned, further subject to the condition that they will join the investigation as and when
-directed by the investigating officer and will not leave the country without the prior permission ofthe Court concerned.
Petitions are disposed of Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
DECEMBER 07, 2017 'ga' BAIL APPLNs. 2206/2016 & 2461/2016 page 2 of2
2017:DHC:8398
JUDGMENT