$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 16.02.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 2833/2025 SAGAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Brijballabh Tiwari and Mr. R.S.

Tomar, Advocates.

versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for State with SI Ramphool, PS Ambedkar Nagar.

Counsel for complainant de facto (appearance not given CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 134/2025 of PS Ambedkar Nagar for offence under Section

498A/406/354/504/509/34 IPC.

2. Broadly speaking, the accused/applicant is husband of the complainant de facto, who has lodged a lengthy complaint leading to registration of the FIR. In the FIR, there are allegations regarding dowry torture and criminal breach of trust related to stridhan. In paragraph 9 of the FIR, it is alleged by the complainant de facto that the accused/applicant used D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD2ec7s1fD e ac. 0 58 iN a 5 r g ,4 4 50 t i .: o 4 a i 5 e 7 71 tc u l .5 : a 6 0e 2 N = 2 =6 l 3 92 0I u 0 y 9 N H8 96 = m 2 a , 6f s, I 8 G 6a f p io bb 3 g 4 ,. oH = 0 4e 90 c n s 2 0 H r n 61 e Ct= . f 2d = a 1 Id 8 O G dl cd 6G 0 C b U 3 H 6 8 cI1 o y e f R R b 8b 4 C d 8 I T G 9 dS: 4 O e6 2 b I H2 O8 =7 R 9 U2 e 3 F 9 I 1 :K R7 0 S e 5 61D A H aT 4 e d 40 7 6T E 4 O - 50 K 7 H0 0 L3 10 AFb H 4 8P 5 e3 T 0 ' 2D I A f 0 c,, H 9 2 f C 4s E 0L 67 c P tI 5 L I' 5 D= A4 6 AH c f 8 2 D 0 L - I 7 6 , 7e I A 9 ec blh a4 6 5 c i a 5 ,d f to carry out unnatural sex with her and capture the same in video format in his phone and used to threaten her that he would circulate those videos if she lodged any complaint against him before anyone.

3. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that the allegations against him are completely false. It is also contended that since with the usual routine allegations of dowry torture, the accused/applicant could not be sent to jail, the complainant de facto inserted paragraph 9 in the FIR so that he has to be arrested. It is also contended that the accused/applicant has surrendered both his mobile phones to the IO but nothing was found in the same. Learned counsel submits that the accused/applicant is ready to ensure that all his family members also handover their mobile phones to the IO.

4. The IO has not appeared. Even the SHO has not bothered to appear. SI Ramphool is present but is not aware about complete facts. Looking into old pendency of this application, I find it unjustified to adjourn.

5. Learned APP for State opposes the anticipatory bail application in view of serious allegations in paragraph 9 of the FIR and further submits that the mobile phones surrendered by the accused/applicant were shown to the complainant de facto but she stated that the mobile phone actually used by the accused/applicant was a different one.

6. Learned counsel for complainant de facto contends that accused/applicant does not have a fixed place of abode and has been shifting D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD2ea7s1fD8 e ,c. 0 5 iN a 5 0 r g o4 4 5 t i . 1 :4 u a i 5 e 7 7 tc e l .5 : = a 6 0 2 N = 22 6 l 3 9 H 0I u 60 y 9 N 8 9 = I f m 2 Ga , 6a s,8 6 f p io b, H b 3 g 4 .c o = 0 4 e 90 n C n s 2 0 H r 61 e t = O = . f 2d a 1 Id 8 G G d Ul cd 6 0 C b 3 H 6 I R 8 cR1 o y e f T b 8 I b 4 C d 8 S G 9 d : O4 O e6 H2 b I 2 8 =7 R F 8 U 2 eK 3 9 I 1 : D R7 5 S e 5 A 61 H aT 3 e dE T 40 7 6 L 4 O H- 50 K 7 0 0 H3 10 P AFb 4 8 5I e3 A , T 0 ' 2D Cf 0 c, H 9 L 2 f 4 Is E 0 6 I D7 c P t A 5 L ' 5 = 4 6 AH c - f 8 2 D 0 LI 7 6 , 7e I A 9 ec blh a4 6 5 c i a 5 ,d f f residences repeatedly, so cannot be granted anticipatory bail.

7. As mentioned above, in her lengthy complaint, the complainant de facto has levelled multiple allegations related to the alleged dowry torture and criminal breach of trust qua stridhan. Almost all those allegations are specific in nature,