( 1 ) FIR No. 6/2007 dated 3. 1. 2007 under Section 498-A/406 IPC ps Hazrat Nizamuddin. Vide Bail Application No. 1711/2007, smt. Surjit Kaur Chopra seeks anticipatory bail. Vide Bail Application No. 1716/2007, sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra seeks anticipatory bail. The 2 applicants are the mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of the complainant, Arti.

( 2 ) AT the outset, I must refer my displeasure at the manner in which Bail application No. 1711/2007 has been drafted by learned counsel for the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE same is a verbatim copy of Bail application No. 1716/2007.

( 4 ) USE of computers does not mean that learned members of the Bar would not apply their mind. Human beings cannot become computers and start operating themselves by clicking a mouse.

( 5 ) LITTLE realizing that in Bail Application no. 1716/2007 reference to the applicant was made as father of the husband of the complainant i. e. as father-in-law of the complainant, even Smt. Surjit Kaur Chopra has been referred to as father of the husband of the complainant i. e. father-in-law of the complainant.

( 6 ) IN the instant case, the misdescription may be trivial. But in large number of cases i notice that the misdescription is not trivial, more so, when disputes relate to complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act 1881. In said cases description of the accused with reference to the role assigned becomes relevant. Precious judicial time is wasted in identifying who is being referred to and in what context reference is being made pertaining to persons accused of offence and who have filed quashing petitions challenging the summoning order.

( 7 ) IT is hoped and expected that learned members of the Bar would justify them being referred to as 'learned counsel'. Their being learned must be reflected in their pleadings.

( 8 ) REFERRING to the facts, why else would a father-in-law and mother-in-law be seeking bail? Of course, when their daughter-in-law has filed a complaint resulting in registration of FIR under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC. This has happened in the instant case.

( 9 ) SINCE issue of anticipatory bail has to be decided, reference to the FIR becomes necessary.

( 10 ) TOUCHING upon the salient features of the FIR, complainant Arti, stated that she met Jitender Singh Chopra, son of the applicants in London in July 2004 through common friends. She states that the two met a number of times and around 3rd week of September 2004 decided to get married in Dubai on 30. 9. 2004. She stated that she and Jitender Singh Chopra came to Delhi and got engaged. That at the time of engagement presents worth Rs. 15 lakhs were gifted by her parents to the in-laws and relatives of Jitender. That her in-laws gave her jewellery worth Rs. 40 lakhs. That at the asking of her prospective mother-in-law, for relatives who were npt present at the engagement, her mother sent additional gifts worth Rs. 5 lakhs. That marriage between the complainant and Jitender was solemnized at Dubai on 27. 10. 2004 as per hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage her mother, relatives and friends gave gifts worth Rs. 70 lakhs. Her in-laws gifted her jewellery worth Rs. 90 lakhs. Next day her mother-in-law took away the jewellery for safe keeping. She and her husband came to Delhi on 3. 11. 2004 and stayed at the farm house of the in-laws. The couple celebrated their first Deepawali. On said function her relatives gave gifts worth Rs. 40 lakhs to her husband. That her mother and her relatives gave her ancestral jewellery worth Rs. 1. 75 lakhs at said function. That her in-laws gave her expensive gifts and jewellery worth Rs. 80 , lakhs. That when they were at Delhi her brother-in-law tried to force himself upon her. That she was disgraced by the family of her in-laws who stated that they expected that she would bring a Mercedes car in her dowry. That when the couple left for their honeymoon her husband compelled her to drink excessively