Santosh Goyal v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

1. By this petition filed under Section 438 of Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 1359/2015 under Section 498-A/406/313/307 of IPC registered at Police Station Saket, New Delhi.

2. The present case is registered at the instance of Ms. Akanksha (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged in her complaint that she got married to Varun Goyal on 20.06.2011 as per 2016:DHC:3190 Hindu rites and rituals and after the marriage, her husband and in-laws started taunting her on account of not giving gifts and jewellery as per their expectations. Besides this, it is alleged that her mother-in-law took all her jewellery and valuables gifted to her by her parents as well as her in-laws on the pretext of keeping the same in safe custody. It is also alleged that after 10-12 days of her marriage she was slapped severely by her husband on account of not preparing tea of their taste. Allegations against Nanad and Nandoi, Jeth and Jethani, mother-inlaw and husband have also been levelled for reducule and deriding her and her parents. Allegations of abusing and using vulgar and offending comments and misbehave have been alleged against nandoi.

3. The complainant also alleged in her complaint that in the year 2011 when she conceived and informed her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law brought some kadah (essence of some medicinal herbs and vegetables) and forcibly made the complainant drink it, which caused her abortion. Allegations of cruelty, inhuman and torturous behaviour is also alleged against the complainants mother-in-law. It is further alleged that in the year 2012, when she again got pregnant but, she did not inform mother-in-law and when she came to know about her pregnancy from her husband, he came to her room on 27.04.2012 and gave her severe beatings. Allegation of demanding costly gifts and clothes and cash at the time of birth of her son on 08.09.2012 is also levelled on her mother-in-law, husband, jeth, jethani and nanad.

4. On the aforesaid statement of the complainant, the present case was registered and investigation started. During the investigation, the complainant was interrogated. The accused Varun Goyal was arrested to recover the istridhan. The accused did not cooperate and in the police raid, nothing could be recovered due to his non-cooperative attitude. However, it is disclosed by the husband that his mother forcibly made the victim drink some kadah.

5. The present petitioner had been granted interim protection for joining the investigation but she did not cooperate in the investigation in recovery of the istridhan, including jewellery of the complainant which runs into lacs. Consequently, the Court rejected her bail application on 16.02.2016. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection of bail to the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

6. Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the fabricated complaint before the CAW Cell. It is further contended that just after the marriage, the complainant started residing separately with her husband at Ahmadabad which is at a distance of about 80 km and thereafter both shifted to Delhi from Gujarat in July 2013. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that no permission was granted by the concerned DCP for adding Section 313/307 of IPC to get rid of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in offences under Section 406/498-A IPC. As regards the pregnancy issue is concerned, it is contended that the complainant got pregnantly only once and the allegation of becoming pregnant in the year 2011 and of miscarriage is a false and concocted story of the complainant. It is further contended that the petitioner has two more children, i.e. one son and one daughter and both are married and living separately as nuclear families.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that when the bail application came up for hearing before this Court on 26.02.2016, this Court had directed the State to file a status report and in the meanwhile the petitioner was granted interim protection with directions to join the investigation as and when required and not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and will be cooperating in the investigation in future as well. Lastly, it is contended that the petitioner is a widow and is aged about 61 years and has clean past antecedents, therefore no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bar. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner ought to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

8. Mr. Rajat Katyal, Additional Public Prosecutor appears on behalf of the State and on instructions from Sub-Inspector Nitesh Sharma, Police Station Saket, New Delhi, confirm the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation. However, it is also submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner regarding compelling the victim to drink Kadah and causing termination of the pregnancy of the complainant against her will and to recover the istridhan of the complainant which is in the custody of the petitioner.

9. I have heard the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of both the sides and also gone through the contents of the petition. Considering the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation and the fact that she is a widow of about 61 years, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner – Santosh Goyal. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required by notice in writing and in the event of arrest, the petitioner – Santosh Goyal be released on bail subject to furnishing her personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

10. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court Concerned.

11. With aforesaid directions, the order dated 26.02.2016 granting interim protection to the petitioner – Santosh Goyal is made absolute and the bail application filed by the petitioner is disposed of.

12. Before parting with the order, this Court would like to place it on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of the trial. Dasti. P.S.TEJI, J APRIL 26, 2016 pkb