Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 3337
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Sulabh Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
Bail Appln. 715 of 2023, Cr. M.A. Nos. 5740-5741 of 2023
Decided On : 18-07-2023
Mr. Saurav Singh and Mr. Abhijit Mishra, Advocates.
Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for State with SI Anita Meena, PS-Ashok Vihar.
Ms. Pooja Kumari and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocates for Complainant along with Complainant in person.
The seriousness of the allegations and the need for investigation can outweigh arguments for anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 498A/406/34, 377, 506 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations under Sections 498A/406/34, 377, 506 IPC. The respondent had left the matrimonial home and filed a complaint against the applicant, including allegations of dowry articles and subsequent addition of Section 377 IPC. The applicant argued against the authenticity of the allegations and delay in raising the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations under Section 377 IPC and the need for investigation. It also noted discrepancies regarding the possession of valuable articles and the need for custodial interrogation.
Issues: Authenticity of allegations, delay in complaint, possession of valuable articles, custodial interrogation
Ratio Decidendi: The seriousness of the allegations under Section 377 IPC and the need for investigation outweighed the arguments raised by the applicant, leading to the dismissal of the bail application.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, and the interim orders were vacated.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. This is an application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in respect of the FIR No. 378/2022 registered at PS: Ashok Vihar, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, initially to which the Sections 377 and 506 of the IPC, 1860 were subsequently added.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that on her own violation, respondent No.2 along with two minor children had left the matrimonial home in the month of October 2022. Learned counsel submits that since the matrimonial home was in the name of mother of the applicant, an injunction suit was accordingly filed by the mother of the applicant, by virtue whereof, an interim injunction order restraining the entry of respondent No.2 to the matrimonial home was passed.
3. Learned counsel submits that moreover by virtue of the order dated 01.03.2023, the learned Trial Court has enlarged the mother of the applicant on bail on the basis of the same facts.
4. Learned counsel submits that the respondent No.2 has all along been agitating only in respect of the dowry articles and no quarrel or any complaint was ever raised in respect of the offences under Sectionn 377 IPC, by the respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel submits that apparently offence of Section 377 of the IPC was added only in the year 2022 that too, subsequent to the petition seeking divorce against the respondent No.2 filed by the applicant on 20.06.2021, to submit that the respondent No.2 has, only as a counter blast and a knee jerk reaction has falsely claimed the assault under the offences in Section 377 of the IPC.
6. Learned counsel submits that the entire thrust of the respondent No.2 is only on the dowry articles, which according to the counsel, the applicant is prepared to hand over even today.
7. Learned counsel also invites attention of this Court to the status report as filed by the State, particularly, to para 9 to submit that even the investigation authorities have themselves stated, based on the submissions of the respondent No.2, that a long period has elapsed since the marriage and she did not even want back the articles.
8. On that basis, learned counsel submits that there is no substance on merits at all in the allegations levelled by the respondent No.2 insofar as the applicant is concerned.
9. Most importantly, learned counsel submits that as per the admission of the respondent No.2 and State itself, the offence under Section 377 were alleged to have been committed way back in the year 2014.
10. Learned counsel submits that having regard to the aforesaid admission, the fact that there has been an immense delay in raising the complaint, would itself, create a doubt as to the authenticity and truthfulness contained in such false and wild allegations.
11. Learned counsel also submits that even the status report filed by the I.O., does not anywhere suggest that the applicant had not participated or joined the investigation as and when called upon by the Police Authorities.
12. Learned counsel refers to the judgment of Munish Bhasin and others vs. State Govt. of (NCT of Delhi) and Another reported in (2009) 4 SCC 45 to submit that the High Court or any court could not put any condition while granting anticipatory bail upon the applicant, as a pre-condition for such release for payment of maintenance etc. to the wife or child and such practice was deprecated by the Supreme Court.
13. Learned counsel next refers to the judgment of the Single Bench of the Telangana High Court in Syed Inayath Ullah vs. State of Telangana reported in 2022 SCC OnLine TS 337 to submit that once there has been a compliance of Section 41A Cr.P.C. by the so-called accused person, the Police Authorities cannot proceed to take any coercive action unless the provisions of Section 41A (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are invoked firs
