Select a page

Naveen Rana Vs. State

Judgement

 
Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: JUSTICE Siddharth Mridul

Naveen Rana Vs. State On 23 September 2015

Law Point:
Anticipatory Bail – Pre-arrest bail under Secs. 498A/406/34 IPC – Applicant has joined investigation and cooperating with the police – Proceedings under sec. 498A/406 IPC are not meant to for recovery of jewellery and dowry articles. Applicant granted bail.

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The present is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for pre-arrest bail in F.I.R.No.770/2014 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Nangloi, Delhi.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant/wife lodged a complaint, which has resulted in the subject F.I.R., alleging cruelty and dowry demand against the applicant/husband. It was alleged that the applicant/husband who is working as a constable in the Delhi Police had demanded an i10 car and other dowry articles. It is alleged that the stridhan belonging to the complainant including jewellery gifted to her by her parents has also been retained by the applicant/husband.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, West, vide order dated 25th May, 2015 dismissed the application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the applicant, inter-alia on the grounds that the allegations leveled against the applicant/husband are serious in nature and the articles of dowry have not yet been recovered.

4. Mr. Rajat Katyal, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that pursuant to the order passed by this court on 29th May, 2015, the applicant/husband has joined investigation.

5. In the present case it is observed that the applicant/husband has a clean record and is not wanted in any other case. The applicant/husband has joined investigation and has been cooperating with the police since the date of the order passed by this court granting him interim protection.

6. The only ground on which the applicant’s prayer for pre-arrest bail is opposed is that the stridhan belonging to the complainant/wife is still in his possession.

7. There is no gainsaying the fact that the proceedings under Section 498A/406 IPC are not meant for the recovery of jewellery and dowry articles. The applicant/husband cannot be denied bail only on the ground that his release would render the recovery of jewellery and other dowry articles difficult. The complainant/wife can, if she so chooses, move the Civil Court for recovery of articles. Ref: ( Jagdish Thakkar v. State of Delhi, reported as 1993 JCC 117) and (Deepak Kumar and Anr. v. State, reported as 2008 (3) Crimes 447 (Del.)

8. There is yet another aspect which has to be considered at this stage. The applicant/husband and the complainant/wife have a two year old son, namely, Manvik. The applicant/husband who is present in-person states that he is willing to deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (rupees eight lakh) in the account of Master Manvik, in the following instalments:-

i) Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakh) within two weeks from today;

ii) Remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakh) within two months thereafter.

9. Counsel for the applicant/husband on instructions from the applicant states that cheques in this behalf shall be handed over to counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/wife, in the present application.

10. The applicant/husband also undertakes to return the i10 car bearing Registration No. DL2CM8352. The possession of the same be given to the complainant/wife within a period of two weeks from today.

11. Insofar as the jewellery is concerned it is the case of the applicant/husband that the complainant/wife took it away with her while leaving her matrimonial home.

12. In view of the foregoing, the present bail application is allowed. In the event of his arrest the applicant/husband shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Station House In-charge/Officer of the concerned Police Station; subject to the further condition that he shall comply with the directions given by this Court in regard to the undertaking given by him in his Court. He shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for questioning as and when called upon by the concerned Police Officer.

13. The Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

14. 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.