Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Bail Application No.1433/2008
% Date of Decision : 14.07.2008
Siddharth Ravindra Jain ….… Petitioners
Through: Mr.Mohit Kumar Shah, Advocate.
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi ......... Respondent
Through : Mr.Amit Sharma, APP for the State.
CORAM :-
* HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
This is a petition under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code
for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, husband of the
complainant wife. On the basis of wife’s complaint to Crime against
Women Cell, Nanakpura Police Station, FIR No.38 of 2008 was
th
registered on 24 June, 2008.
Bail Application No.1433/2008 Page 1 of 3
The petitioner has contended that he has committed no offence
and he has been falsely implicated. According to the petitioner, the
behavior of the respondent was strange right from the beginning and
after returning from the honeymoon. Allegation of suppression of the
fact that the complainant was suffering from Epilepsy is also made. It
is also alleged that all the belongings of the complainant were sent in
three boxes to her residence at Delhi by courier. Divorce proceedings
under Section 13(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act are also pending
before the Senior Civil Judge (SD), Baroda, bearing HMP No.129/2008.
The petitioner’s grievance is that the marriage was solemnized by
committing a fraud on the petitioner and there is no proof of the fact
that he had committed cruelty on the complainant and the allegations
leveled against Mr.Tyagi are also concocted. The petitioner is stated to
be a bright boy who has started his career and has no criminal history.
It is also averred that perusal of FIR will reflect that no offence
punishable under Sections 406/498A/354/34 IPC has been committed.
Perusal of first information report reveals that the allegations are
th
that on 18 December, 2007 petitioner had allegedly told the
complainant that enough dowry was not given to him in marriage and
that the petitioner had been regularly torturing and beating the
complainant to force her to bring more money. It is also alleged that
the complainant was kept in a room without food and water. Shri
Arvind Tyagi had also tried to molest the complainant physically but the
Bail Application No.1433/2008 Page 2 of 3
petitioner did not take any action against Mr.Tyagi and she was rather
told that he married the complainant for fulfilling the desires of
Mr.Arvind Tyagi. The complainant is alleged to have made a call to the
th
petitioner on 14 February, 2008 to return the valuable household
articles, however, the same have not been returned.
Considering the pleas and contentions, the FIR does not seem to
be having bald accusations so as to humiliate or malign the reputation
of the applicant/petitioner only.
Considering the gravity and seriousness of accusations as alleged
by the complainant, I do not consider it to be a fit case to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused.
Consequently, the petition under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed.
th
July 14 , 2008 ANIL KUMAR, J.
‘Dev’
Bail Application No.1433/2008 Page 3 of 3
+ Bail Application No.1433/2008
% Date of Decision : 14.07.2008
Siddharth Ravindra Jain ….… Petitioners
Through: Mr.Mohit Kumar Shah, Advocate.
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi ......... Respondent
Through : Mr.Amit Sharma, APP for the State.
CORAM :-
* HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
This is a petition under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code
for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, husband of the
complainant wife. On the basis of wife’s complaint to Crime against
Women Cell, Nanakpura Police Station, FIR No.38 of 2008 was
th
registered on 24 June, 2008.
Bail Application No.1433/2008 Page 1 of 3
The petitioner has contended that he has committed no offence
and he has been falsely implicated. According to the petitioner, the
behavior of the respondent was strange right from the beginning and
after returning from the honeymoon. Allegation of suppression of the
fact that the complainant was suffering from Epilepsy is also made. It
is also alleged that all the belongings of the complainant were sent in
three boxes to her residence at Delhi by courier. Divorce proceedings
under Section 13(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act are also pending
before the Senior Civil Judge (SD), Baroda, bearing HMP No.129/2008.
The petitioner’s grievance is that the marriage was solemnized by
committing a fraud on the petitioner and there is no proof of the fact
that he had committed cruelty on the complainant and the allegations
leveled against Mr.Tyagi are also concocted. The petitioner is stated to
be a bright boy who has started his career and has no criminal history.
It is also averred that perusal of FIR will reflect that no offence
punishable under Sections 406/498A/354/34 IPC has been committed.
Perusal of first information report reveals that the allegations are
th
that on 18 December, 2007 petitioner had allegedly told the
complainant that enough dowry was not given to him in marriage and
that the petitioner had been regularly torturing and beating the
complainant to force her to bring more money. It is also alleged that
the complainant was kept in a room without food and water. Shri
Arvind Tyagi had also tried to molest the complainant physically but the
Bail Application No.1433/2008 Page 2 of 3
petitioner did not take any action against Mr.Tyagi and she was rather
told that he married the complainant for fulfilling the desires of
Mr.Arvind Tyagi. The complainant is alleged to have made a call to the
th
petitioner on 14 February, 2008 to return the valuable household
articles, however, the same have not been returned.
Considering the pleas and contentions, the FIR does not seem to
be having bald accusations so as to humiliate or malign the reputation
of the applicant/petitioner only.
Considering the gravity and seriousness of accusations as alleged
by the complainant, I do not consider it to be a fit case to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused.
Consequently, the petition under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed.
th
July 14 , 2008 ANIL KUMAR, J.
‘Dev’
Bail Application No.1433/2008 Page 3 of 3