The Petitioner is accused of offence under Sections 498-A, 406
IPC. The perusal of the status report shows that the custodial
interrogation of the Petitioner is being sought only for recovery of Istridhan. The recovery of Istridhan alone cannot be a reason to deny anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. The police are vested with sufficient powers under the Cr.P.C to conduct searches of premises. Further, the material on record shows that there are cross-complaints. The petitioner had filed a complaint in 2018 stating that the complainant’s father is threatening him. There is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner and his family are in such a position that they would be able to threaten the witnesses. It is trite law that the Police Officer before arresting the accused who is accused of offence which is punishable with
imprisonment for a period of seven years has to be satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent a person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him by disclosing such facts to the Courts or the Police Officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required
cannot be ensured. As Stated earlier, the mere fact that the recovery of Istridhan cannot be the sole ground for arresting a person for an offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. {Para 9}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF: BAIL APPLN. 2029/2018
POORAN SINGH Vs STATE OF DELHI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Dated: 10th DECEMBER, 2021
1. This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant
of bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest in FIR No. 56/2018 dated
11.02.2018, registered at PS Model Town for offences under Sections
498-A, 406 and 34 of IPC.
2. The relevant portion of the impugned order vide application no –
1680/2018 in FIR no – 56/2018 passed by the Additional Special Judge,
Rohini, as extracted from the impugned order dated 04.08.2018 is as
follows:
“….. Since, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is
required to recover the dowry articles and Istridhan and the
complainant is receiving the threat constantly on whatsapp from
the applicant. I find no ground to admit the accused on bail, at
this stage…..”
Aggrieved by this impugned order, the petitioner herein has filed the
present bail application.
3. The factual matrix which has transpired in this case is as under –:
a) A complaint was filed by Anjali Sogarwal on 13.04.2017 to the
SHO, PS Model Town, The DCP, Model Town and the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, EOW office stating that her husband
Pooran Singh who is the petitioner herein, her mother-in-law
Ratna Devi and both her sisters-in-law Kamlesh and Lata had
insulted, beaten, pressurized, harassed and tortured the
complainant for more dowry and threatened that if the complainant
wanted a peaceful life, her father must further arrange a dowry
amount of Rs. 50 Lacs.
b) It was also stated that the petitioner herein illegally procured the
complainant’s SIM card from the service provider and uploaded
pictures of his wife i.e. the complainant on social media websites
and it is also stated that the petitioner sent abusive/insulting
messages from the complainant’s social media accounts to the
friends of the complainant with malafide intentions. Based on the
said complaint, FIR No. – 56/2018, dated 11.02.2018 was
registered at PS Model Town, North West Delhi for offences
under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 of IPC.
c) It is stated that on 16.02.2017, the complainant’s father transferred
Rs. 90 thousand into the accused’s account and Rs. 1.5 Lacs into
the complainant’s account which was further transferred into her
husband’s account.
d) It is further stated that on 21.01.2017, the petitioner herein invited
three female friends of the complainant, one male friend, both the
complainant’s brothers and one relative of the accused, namely,
Ravi. It is stated that the petitioner herein mixed alcohol and
served it to all her friends and took inappropriate photos and
threatened them that he would upload it on the internet.
e) It is also stated that the petitioner herein has taken the Istridhan of
the complainant and forcibly given it to his mother. It is stated that
on 09.03.2017, the petitioner herein fought with the complainant
and threw her out of the house and that the passport, ID and
clothes of the complainant is with her husband who is the
petitioner herein. It is also stated that the petitioner herein used all
these documents to procure the SIM card from the service provider
and logged into the complainant’s social media accounts by using
the mobile number.
f) It is also stated that the petitioner herein forced the complainant to
bring money from her parents and the complainant had to go
through physical, mental and emotional torture.
g) It is also stated that the petitioner herein forcibly committed
explicit and unnatural relationship and also showed inappropriate
pictures to her.
h) It is also stated that on 25.03.2017, the petitioner herein was
harassing the complainant after which the complainant called the
Women helpline number 1091.
4. A Complaint was filed by the petitioner herein dated 20.03.2018 to
the Commissioner of Police, I.P. Estate, ITO, New Delhi against the
BAIL APPLN. 2029/2018 Page 4 of 8
complainant i.e. Anjali Sogarwal, the complainant’s father i.e. Ramphal
Singh, the complainant’s mother i.e. Sarngi, complainant’s brothers Amit
Sogarwal and Mohit Sogarwal. It was stated in the complaint that Anjali
Sogarwal (wife of petitioner) was not happy with her marriage and used
to abuse her husband who is the petitioner. It is stated in the complaint
that the petitioner was threatened by the complainant’s father stating that
he works as an officer in Delhi Police Department and the accused
should obey the complainant’s wishes, otherwise he would face dire
consequences. It is also stated that on 10.03.2017, the wife of the
petitioner left the house without giving any reason. It is also stated that
the complainant lodged a written complaint at the CAW Cell, New Delhi
against the petitioner herein under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence
Act, 2005, which is pending before Rohini, District Court, Delhi and also
filed the present FIR no – 56/2018.
5. Status report was filed which stated that on 10.06.2017, the
complainant received a text message from the petitioner admitting that he
was lying throughout. He also admitted that all the jewellery, passport
and other personal belongings of the complainant are with the petitioner
and that the petitioner hacked the Facebook account of the complainant
by using her SIM which was illegally procured. Further, he exerted
pressure on the complainant’s friends to extract more information on the
complainant. On 30.08.2018, the petitioner herein moved an anticipatory
bail application before this Hon’ble Court and this Court granted interim
protection to the petitioner herein, subject to him joining the
investigation. The petitioner herein joined the investigation, but did not
cooperate during the investigations.
6. Mr. S. V. Rateria, Learned counsel for the Petitioner, states that
the wedding of the petitioner and the complainant took place on
08.12.2016 and the complainant left her matrimonial house on
10.03.2017 without any rhyme or reason, and since then she has been
residing at her parental house. The learned counsel submitted that the
father of the complainant is Assistant Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and
that he is threatening the petitioner herein and his family with dire
consequences. He also submitted that the petitioner herein has joined the
proceedings before the CAW Cell and the investigation before the
concerned Investigating Officer. The learned counsel for petitioner also
stated that the FIR no – 56/2018 does not contain any specific allegations
regarding the entrustment of Istridhan against the accused. The Learned
Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the case of Neera Singh v. State,
CRLMC-7262/2006 regarding the justification of marriage expenses,
observing that the complainant needs to provide necessary documents to
make a prima facie case in her favour. The Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner prayed to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in case of his arrest in
FIR no – 56/2018
7. Per contra, Mr. Amit Chadha, Learned APP for the State, and Ms.
Mallika Parmar, Learned Advocate for the complainant, vehemently
opposed the Bail Application by submitting that custodial interrogation
of the Petitioner is required to recover the dowry/Istridhan articles and
the recovery of the mobile phone which was used for sending messages
to the complainant and from which the complainants Facebook account’s
hacking was done.
8. Heard Mr. S. V. Rateria, Learned counsel appearing for the
BAIL APPLN. 2029/2018 Page 6 of 8
petitioner, Mr. Amit Chandha, Learned APP for the State and Ms.
Mallika Parmar, Learned advocate for the complainant and perused the
material on record.
9. The Petitioner is accused of offence under Sections 498-A, 406
IPC. The perusal of the status report shows that the custodial
interrogation of the Petitioner is being sought only for recovery of
Istridhan. The recovery of Istridhan alone cannot be a reason to deny
anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. The police are vested with sufficient
powers under the Cr.P.C to conduct searches of premises. Further, the
material on record shows that there are cross-complaints. The petitioner
had filed a complaint in 2018 stating that the complainant’s father is
threatening him. There is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner
and his family are in such a position that they would be able to threaten
the witnesses. It is trite law that the Police Officer before arresting the
accused who is accused of offence which is punishable with
imprisonment for a period of seven years has to be satisfied that such
arrest is necessary to prevent a person from committing any further
offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused
from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with
such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any
inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him by
disclosing such facts to the Courts or the Police Officer; or unless such
accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required
cannot be ensured. As Stated earlier, the mere fact that the recovery of
Istridhan cannot be the sole ground for arresting a person for an offence
under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC.
10. For the above said reasons, this Court is inclined to grant bail to
the Petitioner in the event of arrest on the following conditions:
a) The Petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, one of
them should be a relative of the Petitioner, to the satisfaction
of the Investigating Officer/SHO concerned;
b) The Petitioner is directed to reside at the address
mentioned in the Memo of Parties i.e. House No. – C - 4/7,
3rd Floor, Street No. - 1, Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar,
Delhi, 110091. If there is any change in the address, he is
directed to intimate the same to the Investigating Officer;
c) The Petitioner is directed to report to the concerned
Police Station twice in a week i.e. every Tuesday and Friday
and shall join the investigation as and when required by the
Investigating Officer and an advance intimation of 24 hours
be given to the Petitioner;
d) The Petitioner is directed to give all his mobile numbers
to the Investigating Officer and to keep them operational at
all times;
d) The Petitioner directed to attend all the proceedings of
the Trial Court through Virtual Court or physically.
e) The Petitioner is directed not to threaten and contact the
complainant or her family. In case Petitioner attempts to do
so, his protection shall stand forfeited.
f) Violation of any of the above conditions by the
Petitioner would result in the immediate cancellation of the
bail granted.
11. The application stands disposed of along with all the pending
application(s), if any.
12. Be it noted that this Court has not made any observations on the
merits of the case.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
DECEMBER 10, 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment