Anticipatory bail can be granted in domestic violence cases if allegations are vague and no necessitating grounds for custodial interrogation exist.

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. This petition is filed by petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 358/2020 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at police station South Rohini.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on the complaint of Ms. Bhawana Sharma the present FIR was registered on 13.10.2020, wherein, the complainant stated that she got married to Manish Dev Malhotra (Petitioner herein) on 19.01.2020 and prior to their marriage, it was told that the petitioner is an MBA and he was running a designer studio in Bali Nagar, Delhi and the father of the petitioner was having a factory of Generator Set in Maya Puri, Delhi. The complainant alleged that the family of the complainant spent huge amount to the tune of Rs.50 lacs in pre-marriage and marriage functions, including belongings given to the petitioner and his family members, which are now lying with the petitioner and his family. It is alleged that the complainant was tortured and taunted, every now and then by her in-laws and was even questioned about her physical relations with the petitioner. The complainant was also forced to resign from service after her marriage and when parents of the complainant came to her matrimonial house to congratulate on her pregnancy, she was forcibly sent to her parental house and was further subjected to harassment and character assassination by the petitioner and her in-laws. It is alleged that on 18.06.2020, complainant was pressurized for MTP and thus, her brother took her to her parental house, but her in-laws got her missing report lodged despite forcibly sending her to the parental home and it is alleged that the petitioner as well as his family members made no effort to take her back.

3. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State assisted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant and perused the status report filed by the state.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant and has been falsely implicated only on the basis of general and vague allegations levelled by her in the FIR. It is further submitted that the FIR reveals no allegations of demand of dowry and the incidents mentioned therein, would only relate to normal wear and tear of marriage. It is further submitted that a false and imaginary list of dowry articles, such as jewelry and gifts has been placed on record by the complainant and the same are currently in custody of the complainant and not with the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation ten times, more specifically on 26.11.2020, 25.02.2021, 30.04.2021, 13.07.2021, 20.07.2021, 04.10.2021 and 11.10.2021, out of which seven times he has physically joined the investigation and three times over phone. It is further submitted that though the status report alleges that the petitioner has not cooperated in the investigation, however, the status report has failed to assign any reason or explanation as to how the petitioner has not cooperated in the investigation. It is further submitted that the mother-in-law, father-in-law and the sister-in-law of the complainant have already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 07.01.2021 and 03.03.2021, respectively, and the petitioner seeks parity. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and he is also not required for the purpose of custodial interrogation.

5. It is submitted by learned APP for the State assisted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that the alle