Nishala Chhabra v. State

1. The petitioner is complainant in FIR No.427/2016 under Sections 498-A/406/323/342/377/506/34IPG registered atPS MalviyaNagarwherein subsequently Section 329 IPG was added. Gonscious of the fact that the complainant was physically abused Rohit Ghhabra was granted regular bail after he remained in custody for nearly 12days.

2. In Grl.M.G.2983/2016the petitioner seeks cancellation ofregular bail of respondent No.2/ Rohit Ghhabra, her husband, granted by the learned Trial Gourt vide order dated Ib^'' June,2016 and in Grl.M.G.2990/2016 the petitioner seeks cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 and 3(Praveen Ghhabra and Kamlesh Ghhabra)her fatherin-law and mother-in-law respectively granted by the learned Additional SessionsJudge vide order dated 9"^ June,2016.

3. In respect ofGrl.M.G.2983/2016 the contention oflearned counsel for the petitioner is that since the recovery of articles of istridhan of the petitioner are still to be made, custodial investigation of Rohit Ghhabra is required and the learned Additional Sessions Judge grossly erred in granting regular bail in view ofthe specific accusations against Rohit Ghhabra having performed unnatural sex with the petitioner. In Grl.M.G. 2990/2016 contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that soon after the registration ofFIR the petitioner received threat and thus Praveen Ghhabra and Kamlesh Ghhabra were not entitled to anticipatory bail. It is further stated that there is a real apprehension that Praveen Ghhabra and Kamlesh Ghhabra may flee fromjustice.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The allegations ofthe petitioner in the above-noted FIR are that her CRLM.C 2983/2016 <& CRL.M.C.2990/2016 Page2of[4] parents spent ^50 lakhs at the time of marriage on 22"'^ November, 2011 wherein the functions were performed lavishly and costly jewellery and clothes were given as gifts to the in-laws. On 31'^ January,2012she and her husband went to Goa for her honeymoon where he was angry and annoyed with her and performed unnatural sex with her. The complainant was not th given any kind ofspace or freedom in the house. On 8 August,2012 she was beaten because she refused to ask for the money from her parents as her in-laws wanted to buy a shop in the same area where they were having a show-room. When she wanted to call her parents, the mother-in-law snatched her mobile and threw water on her. The complainant was regularly abused for insufficient dowry. After the incident dated 10^ October,2012 her parents were called and a demand of^20 lakhs was made. Whenever she used to go to her parental home, her husband used to demand money. On January and 2"^* February,2013 when she refused to fulfil the demand of bringing cash she was pushed on the floor and slapped. Her husband developed an indifferent attitude on October, 2013 for no rhyme and reason. Her husband used to instigate her to commit suicide and he also indulged in "wife-swaping game". On 8^*^ June,2014 the complainant was beaten and on 28^*"June,2014she wasthrown outofthe matrimonial home.

6. It may be noted that Rohit Chhabra was taken into custody and only after 12 days ofcustody bail order was passed in his favour. Rohit Chhabra was arrested on 4^*^ June,2016 and senttojudicial custody on 5^^ June,2016. No Police Custody remand was sought by the investigating officer,thus the averment ofthe complainant that custodial interrogation ofRohit Chhabra wasrequired for recovering the articles is totally unfounded. Asregardsthe allegation ofthreatto the complainantare concerned,the learned Trial Court CRL.M.C.2983/2016& CRL.M.C 2990/2016 Page3of[4] noted this contention ofthe petitioner and directed SHO PS Malviya Nagar to ensure safety ofthe complainant not only at her residence but also during her transportation from her residence at Malviya Nagar to Gurgaon. Thus adequate measures have already been taken by the learned Trial Court. As regards the contention offleeing away fromjustice is concerned,a LOG was opened against Praveen Chhabra and Kamlesh Chhabra and they have been further directed to surrender their passport with the investigating officer and not leave the country without the prior permission ofthe concerned Court. Rohit Chhabra has also been directed not to influence the witnesses. Thus adequate conditions have been imposed by the learned Trial Court to safeguard the interest ofthe petitioner.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances ofthe case,I find no reason to cancel the bail granted to Rohit Chhabra and anticipatory bail granted to Praveen Chhabra and Kamlesh Chhabra.

8. Petitions are dismissed.

MUKTA GUPTA,J. AUGUST 19,2016 'ga' CRL.M.C 2983/2016& CRL.M.C.2990/2016 Page4of[4]