Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CHARU SONEJA – Appellant
Versus
STATE(NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-2050/2021
The court must tread with utmost circumspection when considering an application for cancellation of bail, and only after an in-depth examination of the situation and new emergent facts and on finding supervening circumstances and overwhelming evidence that the accused has been abusing the liberty granted to him by the Court, should the Court then exercise its jurisdiction in seizing the liberty of an accused undertrial.
Headnote:
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - CANCELLATION - TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE - [The court held that the mere operation of a bank locker by the accused after the grant of anticipatory bail, without any evidence of tampering with evidence, is not a ground for cancellation of bail.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the complainant in a case involving allegations of sexual harassment and theft, filed an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, her in-laws. The petitioner alleged that the respondents had operated a bank locker after the grant of anticipatory bail and had tampered with evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents had joined the investigation and had been cooperative. The court also noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the respondents had tampered with evidence.
Issues: Whether the operation of a bank locker by the accused after the grant of anticipatory bail is a ground for cancellation of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere operation of a bank locker by the accused after the grant of anticipatory bail, without any evidence of tampering with evidence, is not a ground for cancellation of bail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
CRL.M.C. 2050/2021 Page 1 of 9
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 03rd JANUARY, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
+
CRL.M.C. 2050/2021
CHARU SONEJA
..... Petitioner
Through
Mr. K. K. Manan, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Uditi Bali and Ms. Komal
Vashist, Advocates
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS
..... Respondent
Through
Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State
with SI Ravinder Kumar, PS Naraina
Ms. Kamlesh Mahajan, Advocate for
R-2 to R-5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1.
This application has been filed under Section 439(2) CrPC read with
Section 482 CrPC for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to
Respondents No.2 to 5 by order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Patiala
House Court in BAIL APPLNs 836/2021 and 837/2021 emanating from FIR
No. 73/2021 registered at PS Naraina for the offences under Sections 354,
354A, 354B, 406, 498A, 506, 509, 34 IPC.
2.
The complainant gave a complaint against her husband Varun Soneja,
respondent No.2 herein, father-in-law Parveen Soneja, respondent No.3
herein, mother-in-law Kiran Soneja, respondent No.4 herein and brother-in-
This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000021
CRL.M.C. 2050/2021 Page 2 of 9
law Karan Soneja, respondent No.5 herein, for offences under Sections 354,
354A, 354B, 406, 498A, 506, 509, 34 IPC.
3.
In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that pursuant to her
marriage to Varun Soneja, respondent No.2 herein, who is the son of the
respondent No.3 and 4, she has constantly been harassed by her in-laws. It
is alleged that all the articles given to her by her parents were taken away
from her by her mother-in-law. It is also alleged that her father-in-law
attempted to rape her and has outraged her modesty. She alleged that her
brother-in-law had outraged her modesty. On the said allegations, FIR
No.73/2021 for offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 406, 498A, 506,
509, 34 IPC was registered.
4.
Apprehending arrest, the respondents herein filed an application under
Section 438 CrPC praying for grant of anticipatory bail. The complainant
appeared through her lawyer in the proceedings. The order dated 04.06.2021
records that it is admitted by both sides that stridhan articles as admitted by
the respondents No.2 to 5 have been returned. However, the counsel for the
complainant submitted that substantial jewellery of more than Rs.3 crores
have not yet been returned. This was recorded in the order dated
04.08.2021. The chargesheet has been filed.
5.
On 06.08.2021 also there has been a specific allegation made by the
counsel for the complainant therein that a substantial portion of the jewellery
articles of more than Rs.3 crores has not been returned. It is also stated that
only one locker of the husband of the complainant was searched and that too
after the husband of the complainant had already operated the locker and
removed the jewellery. It has also been stated that the lockers of the other
three accused were not searched for the reasons best known to the
This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000021
CRL.M.C. 2050/2021 Page 3 of 9
investigating agencies. The said order also quotes the relevant portion of the
reply of the I.O. wherein different dates have been given regarding the
operation of the lockers. The said reply also notes that the complainant was
requested a number of times to provide bills of jewellery articles/dowry
articles but sufficient bills have not been provided on the ground that the
complainant does not have all the
