The completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet, along with the nature of allegations being a matter for trial, influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the petitioner.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. By this petition filed under Section 439 of Cr. P.C., read with Section 482 of Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks bail in a case registered as FIR No. 780/2015 under Section 498-A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Ranhola, Delhi.

2. The prosecution case is based on the complaint filed by Mrs. Renu Sharma before the CAW Cell and it is only by the recommendation of CAW Cell, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner and his parents on 24.09.2015. Investigations carried out and statement of the complainant under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. was also recorded. The complainant also provided the relevant documents supporting the allegations leveled in the FIR. Petitioner had earlier applied for anticipatory bail thrice, but every time his application was rejected. Even proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against him and ultimately on 13.07.2016, the petitioner was arrested. After arrest, the petitioner also filed bail application before the concerned magistrate, which was rejected. Thereafter, petitioner applied for regular bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was declined vide order dated 21.09.2016 while observing that filing of the charge-sheet is not a change in circumstance. Further application for seeking regular bail was also rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 14.10.2016, while observing no change in circumstance. Petitioner’s third application was also rejected vide order dated 22.10.2016. Hence, the petitioner is before this court.

3. There is an allegation of the complainant that the petitioner is involved in extra-marital affairs and out of which he also has a female child. It is further alleged that the petitioner is not living with the complainant at matrimonial home and does not provide any money to meet her day to day needs. Even the school authorities are not allowing her elder son to appear in exams due to non payment of fees.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was married to the complainant in the year 1995 and no complaint of any nature was either against him or his parents and it is only on the behest of parents of the complainant with intention to grab the property of the old aged parents of the applicant, they have been falsely implicated in the case. It is further contended that the petitioner is in custody for the last about four and half months. Even the charge sheet dated 10.08.2016 in the case has been filed on 7.9.2016 and the petitioner is no more required for any interrogation or inquiry in the matter.

5. Apart from the above, it is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that there are old ailing parents (mother – 73 years and father – 78 years) and no one else than the petitioner is there to take care of them. Mother of the petitioner has been operated for cancer and also needs continuous care. It is further urged that there is no likelihood of the petitioner to interfere or tamper with any evidence or influencing the witnesses or the investigation in the matter. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody.

6. Mr. Ashish Datta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that during investigation it is revealed that the petitioner has extra marital affair with a lady namely Mrs. Avantika and out of this affair, there is also a girl child namely Shubhangi. Besides this, the petitioner’s three anticipatory applications were rejected and proceedings under Section 82 Cr. P.C. were also initiated against him. It is only thereafter, he was arrested on 13.07.2016. On merits, it is also submitted on behalf of the State that during investigation it was revealed that the petitioner is also not paying any money and attention towards the complainant and two sons. More so, three applications seeking regular bail have already been rejected by the learned Add