Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1788
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
P.S. TEJI, J.
HIMANSHU SURI – Petitioner
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) – Respondent
Bail Appeal No. 995 of 2017
Decided On : 30-05-2017
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Domestic Violence
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.498(a), S.406, S.34
Headnote
Anticipatory Bail - Domestic Violence - Indian Penal Code - Section 498-A/406/34 - Section 41 Cr.P.C. - Section 437, 438, 439 Cr.P.C. - Udit Raj Poonia vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Matrimonial cases bail is a rule and refusal is an exception
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, involving allegations of domestic violence and dowry demands. The complainant accused the petitioner of physical abuse, dowry demands, and deprivation of her belongings.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, had not tampered with evidence, and had already joined the investigation. The court also referred to the guidelines in Udit Raj Poonia vs. State and emphasized that bail is a rule in matrimonial cases.
Issues: The issues revolved around the seriousness of the allegations, the ongoing investigation, and the petitioner's cooperation with the authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail in matrimonial cases is a rule and refusal is an exception. It also highlighted the mandatory nature of Section 41 Cr.P.C. and the guidelines for bail under Section 437, 438, 439 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, directing him to join the investigation when required and not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Amit A. Rai and Mr. Rahmat Bansal.
For the Respondents: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Mr. Jitender and Mr. Varun Dhingra.
P.S. TEJI, J.
1. By this present application filed under Section 438 of Cr. P.C. the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0536/2016 under Section 498-A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Model Town, Delhi.
2. The present FIR has been registered at the instance of the complainant, who has stated before the police that after marrying with Shri Himashu Suri, her husband (petitioner herein) started beating her and making allegations on her character. After two days of her marriage her jewellery articles were taken away by her in-laws and they used to make dowry demands. She had specifically stated that on 29th December 2015, her husband asked her to bring Rs. 5 lakhs from her parents as he wanted to expand his business. When she denied asking for money from her parents, her husband beat her up, upon which she seeked help from the neighbours. She called her parents who were also beaten up by her husband and father-in-law. She further stated in her complaint that on 30.12.2015 she went to Vijay Nagar Police Station for filing a complaint against her in-laws but they refused to take the complaint, and Ghaziabad Women Cell had also not taken any action against her in-laws. After entering into a settlement with her husband she started living with her husband but after 2-3 days, on instance of her sister-in-law her husband abused her and gave beatings to her at the time of marriage of her sister-in-law. When she asked for handing her jewellery, her husband locked her in a room. She was also thrown out from her matrimonial home and her clothes, stridhan, jewellery items, dowry articles, and documents in respect of her identity were not given to her.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after marriage with the complainant on 29.01.2015, the petitioner started living separately from his wife from 29.04.2015. It is further stated that FIR in this case was registered on 29.09.2016 and prior to that the petitioner had been appearing before the CAW Cell at every stage as and when he was asked to appear before CAW Cell. Even the articles of the complainant as recorded in the seizure memo have been returned. Petitioner has already joined the investigation on 13.02.2017, 08.03.2017, 03.04.2017 and is cooperating with the investigation and there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner, yet the petitioner has been served with a police notice on 03.04.2017 to appear before the police at the Model Town Police Station for arrest. Thereafter the petitioner approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Rohini Courts, Delhi, by way of bail application seeking anticipatory bail, and the same by order dated 19.05.2017 was rejected by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this court for anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that since the petitioner has been cooperating with the investigation and has not tampered with any evidence, and is still ready to join the investigation as and when so directed by the investigating officer, there is no apprehension of the petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with the evidence. Apart from this, the co-accused of the case have already been granted pre-arrest bail and they have also been cooperating with the criminal investigation, therefore, the petitioner ought to be granted bail in the present case.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on instructions from the investigating officer, has stated that since the recovery of the jewellery articles and documents of the complainant have to be effected from the petitioner, therefore his arrest is sought. On receipt of notice for arrest, the petitioner had filed a bail application in the Rohini Court on 06.04.2017 in which both the parties have stated before the court that the matter is pending before the mediation cell, therefore the arrest of the petitioner was stayed till 25.04.2017 and thereafter till 19.05.2017. Ho
