Full Text
I i Oecideilil By BAIL APPLN._1720_2016_J : 1720
: 2015 : 28/01/2016 : BAIL APPLICATION : Hon'able Mr/Mrs Justice PRATIBHA RANI J
^Petitaoiner/Plaintiff Name : MAYA &. ANOTHER
Respondent/Defendent Name : STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
Petitioner/Plaintiffs Adv : KKTYAGI Respondent/Defendent' Adv : ALPANA PANDEY &OTHERS
Print Dibte i Compaiiiy IMame 23-01-2017 DATASOFT COMPUTER SERVICES
2016:DHC:8373 CAUSE TITLE.NAME OF THE 'PARTIES
S( Nq.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
H.C.D.0.A.-2 '
CourtRules&OrdersVol-V", as no communication has been received inthis respect.
"SHfisslsaiiertified-tlisHlHhfrfelevant-iJapers-inetadtfljitfftee- noting pertainingto paymentjand return of FDRjBank Guaranty or otheriocumEnts have been removed from Part'S' and bave
Seen mMiUhe endofPart'A'. pealing flski A.D.J. I.D. Mo... c.L
PART A & B AMOUNT OF COURT FEE PAID -4 y {4r-7
PAGE
'e> /-/' IL $-49 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1720/2015
MAYA & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr.K.K. Tyagi, Adv.
Respondent
Through: Ms. Alpana Pandey, APP for the State with ASI Riyaz Mohd., PS Jyoti Nagar
24.08.2015 Crl.M.A.12211/2015 Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of
The petitioners, who are in-laws of the victim, have preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No;634/2015 instituted under Sections 307/34 IPG.
The petitioners seekpre-arrest bail on the ground that a false and concocted case was lodged by the victim.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in fact the victim had brought a kerosene oil bottle withher onlyto implicate the petitioners in the present case. She deliberately made an attempt at self-immolation.
Issue notice. Ms. Alpana Pandey, AFP accepts notice.
Renotify on 7.10.2015.
Letno coercive steps betaken against thepetitioner inthemeanwhile.
Needless to say, that the petitioners would join investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer/SHO ofthe concerned Police Station.
Dasti.
AUGUST 24, 2015 ns ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J $-6 MAYA & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr.K.K.Tyagi, Advocate.
Through: Ms.AlpanaPandey, APP.
07.10.2015 Ms.Alpana Pandey has filed the status report today in the Court after giving a copy of the same to the counsel for the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to respond to the status report.
Renotify on 14.01.2016.
The interim order passed on 24.08.2015 shall continue.
OCTOBER 07,2015 k ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J |v^yVv , \o f'WvxovM
VyoV y/tuf .
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Through: Counsel for the petitioners.
(Appearance not given)
Through: Ms.Alpana Pandey, APP for the State AND
LALIT MOHAN Petitioner
Through: Counsel for the petitioner.
(Appearance not given)
Through: Ms.Alpana Pandey, APP forthe State
«/o 14.01.2016
ORDER
1. Renotify for 28'*" January, 2016.
2. Interim order to continue. ^^^^m^^[BSA>RANI,J. JANUARY 14, 2016 'aky' — I N 2- Ijl cei-rc^. Cely\y^ ' $-13 & 9 + BAIL APPLN. 2746/2015 LALIT MOHAN Petitioner Through: Mr.K.K.Tyagi, Advocate versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) Respondent Through: Ms.Alpana Pandey, APP for theState withASIRiyaz Mohd. PS Jyoti Nagar Mr.Ashok Kumar, Advocate for complainant alongwith complainant in person AND Through: Mr.K.K.Tyagi, Advocate versus STATE (GOVT OFNCT OF DELHI) Respondent Through: Ms.Alpana Pandey, APP for the State with ASI Riyaz Mohd. PS Jyoti Nagar. Mr.Ashok Kumar, Advocate for complainant along with complainant in person CORAM: HON'BLE MS.
JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI ORDER % 28.01.2016
1. The applicants/petitioners namely Lalit Mohan, Maya and Ram Mehar before this Court are the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant respectively. BAIL APPLN. Nos.2746 & 1720of2015 Page 1 of[6]
2. While, the petitioner Lalit Mohan (in Bail Application No.2746/2015) has applied for regular bail in case FIR No.634/2015 under Sections 307/34 IPG which has been registered at PS Jyoti Nagar on the basis of complaint made by his wife Shivani, the petitioners Maya and Ram Mehar (in Bail Application No.1720/2015 are seeking anticipatory bail inthe said FIR.
3. Status report has been filed bythe State.
4. Complainant is also present along with hercounsel.
5. Heard.
6. On behalf of complainant, it has been submitted that the prayer for grant of bail to the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant may be declined as earlier their bail applications have been dismissed in view of the gravity of the offence. It has been further submittedthat it is a case where attemptwas madeto kill the complainant by pouring kerosene oil on her and at that time she was in family way. Hence the bail applications filed by the petitioners Lalit Mohan - husband, Maya mother-in-law and and Ram Mehar father-in-law of the complainant may be dismissed.
7. Learned APP for the State has also opposed the prayer of the petitioner to be released on bail on the ground that case under Section 307/34 IPG has been registered against him.
8. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that petitioners have beenfalsely implicated inthis case by the complainant whohasput kerosene on herself and thereafter called the police. When the police reached she handed over a pre-written complaint.
9. It has been contended that the allegations made in the complaint are that on 1®' August, 2015 atabout 11.00 p.m. her husband Lalit Mohan tried BAIL APPLN. Nos.2746 &1720 of2015 Page[2] of[6] to have physical relations with the complainant to which she objected. She also called her mother-in-law and father-in-law as her husband got annoyed on her refusal to have physical relations. Thereafter her mother-in-law and father-in-law started scolding her and attempted to kill her. While her both hands were caught by her mother-in-law and father-in-law, her brother-inlaw (Devar) uttered the words that matter should be finished by killing her. Thereafter her husband brought kerosene oil from inside and poured on her. As she raised alann, due to fear she was released. She entered the room and bolted it from inside and called PGR. She opened the door only when PGR came. The police was misguided by her in-laws and husband by saying that she (complainant) was attempting to commit suicide. She prayed for legal action against her husband and in-laws.
10. The copy of the FIR shows that ASI Riyaz Mohd. visited the spot along with Gonstable Devender Kumar after DD No.55-B was assigned to him. It is also mentioned in the rukka that when he reached the spot the complainant handed over a written complaint on the basis of which FIR has been registered.
11. Along with the petition, the petitioners have also placed on record marriage certificate dated 5"^ August, 2013 in respect of registration of marriage of Shivani Panchal with Mr.NitinGupta, S/o Hari Parkash Gupta, R/o 138, Katra Masroo,Dariba Kalan, Ghandni Ghowk, Delhi. Photocopies of the affidavits furnished by Nitin Gupta and Shivani Panchal are also annexed with the marriage certificates. The date of marriage of the complainant with the petitioner Lalit Mohan is mentioned in the FIR as 8"^ July, 2014 i.e. subsequent to her alleged marriage on S''" August, 2013 with Nitin Gupta. BAIL APPLN. Nos.2746 &1720 of2015 Page[3] of[6]
12. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that in fact the complainant wanted to go back to Nitin Gupta with whom she was having affair and in a pre-planned marmer she visited the house of the complainant on the day of occurrence along with her father who left in the evening and during night time she poured the kerosene oil on herself, called the police and handed over a pre-written complaint.
13. The petitioner Lalit Mohan inthis case is incustody since 2"^^ August,
2015. Though the petitioners havebeenbooked for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC but copy of the MLC of the injured shows that she has not suffered any injury despite the fact that she was allegedly caught by her father-in-law and mother-in-law, her devar wanted to finish the matter by killing her and the petitioner-husband allegedly brought kerosene and poured on her. In the bail application, in para 4, averments about the settlement entered into between the parties pursuant to which the case under Domestic Violence Act was to be withdrawn by the complainant on 01.08.2015 have been made. In para 5 of the bail application, it is fiirther mentioned that pursuant to the compromise the complainant came to the house of her husband on 24.07.2015, however, on 01.08.2015 the day when she was supposed to withdraw the complaint under Domestic Violence Act from the Court of learned MM, instead of accompanying with her husband, she attended the Court alongwith her father and did not withdraw the case. Thereafter, in the evening she alongwith her father came to the house ofher husband at about 5.00 - 6.00 pm with a cloth bag which she was not carrying alongwith her while appearing before the Court. The father of the complainant left the house of the petitioners at about 7.00 pm and that night i.e. on 01.08.2015 itself at about 11.00 pm the BAIL APPLN. Nos.2746& 1720of2015 Page 4 of[6] complainant bolter the door from inside, poured kerosene oil on herself and called the PGR. It is further mentioned in the bail application that the complainant might have brought kerosene with her in the cloth bag which she brought alongwith and with a view to implicate the petitioner and his family, she poured the kerosene, called the PGR and handed over a pre written complaint which might have been prepared by her during course of the day while visiting Karkardooma Gourt.
14. Alongwith the bail application, documents from Page No.30 to 35 have also been annexed pertaining to the marriage of Shivani Panchal with Nitin Gupta on 05.08.2013. It may be noted that the particulars of the girl including her parentage is the same as that of the complainant who has been cited as a witness in case FIR No. 634/2015 Under Section 307/34 IPG PS Jyoti Nagar. Her marriage with the petitioner Lalit Mohan has been solemnised subsequently on 08.07.2014. Endorsement on the rukka records that when the police reached the place of alleged occurrence, a pre-written complaint was handed over to him on which endorsement was made and case under Section 307 IPG was registered.
15. Lest it may prejudice the case of any of the parties I refrain from making any observation on the various issues raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in this case.
16. Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner Lalit Mohan is in custody since 2"^ August, 2015, no injury has been suffered by the complainant, I consider it to be a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. It is directed that the Petitioner Lalit Mohan be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of? 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Gourt. BAIL APPLN. Nos.2746& 1720of2015 Page 5 of[6]
17. So far as petitioners Maya and Ram Mehar, who are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant and seeking anticipatory bail, are concerned, it is directed that in the event of arrest, they be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of ? 50,000/- each with one surety ofthe like amount to the satisfaction of concerned lO/SHO.
18. Boththe applications standdisposed in the above terms.
19. Any observations made hereinabove for the purpose of dealing with the contentions of counsel for the Petitioners shall not be deemed to be an expression on merits ofthe case.
20. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information. As prayed, copy of the order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties under the signature of Court Master. prSibhara JANUARY 28, 2016/ RlllBHARbiir^ BAIL APPLN. Nos.2746 & 1720 of2015 Page 6 of[6] 'i osG| osr/. M-, ao/))g:,;,; The Registrar- G'enejraJ, i|' High Court ofDelhi, •t • New Delhi.. 'ro;: •P\' • i-'r; •..' '.u' l/)^ Ixy,:..S'-eA^-.'• •••> ".| •. •-MlttwyPFHeATlipNWl,.. /7n:i V wi-'. -I•• •.6«™ uoae,-. •.438/439M82 ol' Cod. „f Crl. P.-„coau„ fii,- g«.„t „fi, -4»^a.apau,ry/r.^- b.ulmc^ awderscction =,.; • -IPG, regitifcircdi-at Police Station (S^ ^ y; i'3'; Q •:/•/•;>• ••-V. E R s U S ion. I j) f:-Pe(:itii(mer •J^-espoftd-Srit Si#5'" • •• ' •. •. •; •' to-:fcrwarcl hdirewrth for immediate comipliance/hecessary•action: a^cupygT ordcj- ', passed in'the'abbverrieixtionedpetition by Hon'biem.IustiCs {L^ \' • olfifhis-Court., ' '. •• ' •; The Hon'ble'; Court while- ^sposing of the case has' ' directed that,..| ^'•.'- ^{•'• •\,C;;: >••• • (..v.v.n'l §!->.i.r>^^ y-^ SOc.CnSS!,.l:^,..a^.(U^ ^.<3 {.s.l-rho..^ •Other directio.nf!''are"contained.:.i:vi the e.uclbsed copy oforder. ''%• "Please acknowledge '., IV...•.•'::.Eh^)-: Copy oforder d^ted 't^indtjieraq ofparties, Yours faitltfull-y. AsMstaj.it Re-gistraf (.Cjv.l.) for Registrar. General. £>/