SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Del) 1594

K.S.GUPTA
NARESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE (NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI) – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Arun Rathi, Javed Ali, M.N.Dudeja

K. S. Gupta

( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is the husband, petitioners 3 and 4 are parents-in-law and petitioner No. 2 is brother-in-law of Smt. Geeta on whose complaint dated 12/07/2001 made to Crime Against Women Cell, case under Section 498-A was registered on 14/07/2001. Contention advanced by Mr. Alvi is that allegations made in FIR are vague inasmuch as date, month and year of alleged demand and beating have not been disclosed therein. However, on the other hand, Shri Kapoor has invited my attention to the supplementary statement of complainant recorded on 27/07/2001 wherein some of the instances of demand and infliction of cruelty have been disclosed. Obviously those instances were within the knowledge of complainant on the date she made complaint on 12/07/2001. In the facts and circumstances of case, petitioners are admitted to anticipatory bail. In the event of their arrest, they will be released on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 with the surety in like amount each to the satisfaction of SHO/i. O. concerned. They will, however, join investigation as and when required by the I. O. Dasti. Anticipatory Bail granted.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top