Select a page

Jagdish Thakkar Vs. State of Delhi

Judgement

Court:HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Bench: JUSTICE Mohd. Shamim

Jagdish Thakkar Vs. State of Delhi

Law Point:
In a case under S. 498A and 406 bail cannot be denied only on the ground that jewelry and the dowry articles were not recovered.

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

1. This is an application by the petitioner for release on bail in anticipation of his arrest. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mathur and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is a man of status inasmuch as he is an Assistant Manager of Syndicate Bank. Smt. Mamta, wife of the petitioner left the house on 26.1.1992 and the FIR was registered on 2.7.1992. The house of the petitioner was raided five times. The petitioner himself produced certain ornaments before the ‘Crime’ against Women Cell. The locker which is in the name of the petitioner was also opened and certain ornaments were also recovered even at that lime. Co-accused persons have already been released on bail. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are the same which were levelled against the co-accused persons, hence the petitioner is also entitled to an order of bail.

2. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand has contended that the ornaments which were given to Smt. Mamta i.e. the wife of the petitioner, by way of dowry are still to be recovered. In case the petitioner is released on bail it would hamper the investigation and there would not be any recovery of the jewellery. I am sorry. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the State. The proceedings under Sections 406 and 498-A are not meant for the recovery of the jewellery and the dowry articles. The wife of the petitioner if she so chooses can move the Civil Court for the recovery of the said articles. Let the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/IO concerned in the event of his being arrested by the police. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so. Dasti.

DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

You may contact me for legal consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us

If you have any query related to gender biased laws join SahodarWhatsapp Groups by sending Whatsapp message “Subscribe” to Sahodar Trust No. 9811850498

0 Comments

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.