Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 3351
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
Kamlesh and Others - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Applns. 944, 995 and 998 of 2014
Decided On : 03-09-2014
For the Appellant :Sunil Mittal, J.S. Dagar and Rajesh Mishra, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Rajdipa Behura, A.P.P, Advocates.
The absence of specific allegations in the initial FIR influenced the court's decision to grant anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Domestic Violence - The court granted anticipatory bail to the husband, mother-in-law, and father-in-law of the complainant in a case involving allegations of harassment, torture, and demand for cash and car. The court found that the nature of the allegations initially made in the FIR did not include any allegation of rape by the father-in-law or any other person, leading to the decision to grant anticipatory bail.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged harassment, torture, and demand for cash and car by her husband and in-laws. No allegations of rape against the father-in-law were made for about 10-11 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that since no allegation of rape by the father-in-law or any other person was made in the initial FIR, it was a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Issues: Allegations of harassment, torture, and demand for cash and car by the husband and in-laws. No allegations of rape against the father-in-law for about 10-11 years.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision to grant anticipatory bail was based on the absence of any allegation of rape by the father-in-law or any other person in the initial FIR.
Final Decision: The court directed that the applicants shall be released on bail, on their furnishing personal bonds, and joining the investigation as and when directed to do so.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
1. By this common order, I shall dispose of three bail applications under Section 438 read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the Applicants, namely, Krishan, Kamlesh and Jai Narayan seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 230/2013, under Sections 498-A/406/342/376/34, IPC, registered at Police Station Baba Hari Das Nagar, New Delhi. The Applicant Krishan is the husband of the Complainant Jyoti, whereas Applicants Kamlesh and Jai Narayan are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the Complainant respectively.
2. On 23.9.2013, FIR No. 230/2013 has been recorded on the statement of Shri Sunil Kumar, father of the Complainant and jointly signed by the Complainant and her father. It is stated in the FIR that the Complainant Jyoti got married to the Applicant Krishan in the year 2002. Right from the inception of the marriage, her mother-in-law Kamlesh and father-in-law Jai Narayan started making demands for cash and car. They used to make Jyoti call her father and make demand for money. Many a times father of Jyoti borrowed money to meet the demands of in-laws of his daughter. It is further mentioned in the FIR that Jyoti used to be given beatings by her husband and was not given food by her mother-in-law. Jyoti continued living in that condition for about 10 years. On 24.1.2013 at about 8:15, Applicant Krishan called Shri Sunil Kumar to meet the demand of Rs. 20,000/-, which he refused to meet. Thereafter, the Applicant Krishan started beating Jyoti and telephoned her father that he would not be able to see face of Jyoti on the next day. Immediately, father of Jyoti reached her matrimonial home and protested, but he was also given beatings. Then, father of Jyoti called PCR, but no action was taken in the matter. Hence he filed written complaints signed by him as well as his daughter for necessary action in the matter.
3. In another complaint, Shri Sunil Kumar, father of Jyoti referred to the PCR call made by him on 24.1.2013 and inaction by the Police. In this complaint, allegations have been made that when he (Sunil Kumar) questioned Jyoti about her in-laws, she informed:
"Mere Saath Mera Pati Krishan vah Mera Sasur Jabarjasti Sambhog Karte Thai and Bahar Se Bhi Aadmi Bulati Thai, Per Mein Chillati Thei, Meri Saas Kamlesh Mujhe Marti Thei, Mera Sasur Jai Narain and Krishan Marte Thei. Aaj Dinank 25.2.2013 Ko Subah Phone Aaya Landline Jiska Number 25373099 Hei............................"
4. On the basis of statement of the Complainant Jyoti recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C., Section 376, IPC was also added in the FIR.
5. Perusal of record shows that the Complainant Jyoti got married to the Applicant Krishan in the year 2002 and right from that time, for about 11 years, relations between the two families were alleged to be not cordial and that Jyoti was tortured by her husband and in-laws. In the complaints made to the Police in respect of harassment, torture and demand of cash and car etc. and other litigation under Domestic Violence Act and under Section 125, Cr.P.C., at no point of time allegations of rape against the father-in-law or being subjected to rape by any other person at the behest of father-in-law, were levelled during these 10-11 years.
6. Looking into the nature of allegations initially made in the FIR which was registered under Sections 498-A/406/342/34, IPC on the basis of written complaint of the father of the Complainant and the said complaint being jointly signed by both of them, since no allegation of rape by the father-in-law or any other person was made, I find it to be a fit case to enlarge the Applicants on anticipatory bail.
7. It is accordingly directed that in the event of arrest of the above Applicants, they shall be released on bail, on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned. However, they shall join the investigation as and when directed to do so.
8. Applications st
