BAIL APPLN./3205/2019 of KARAN BAKSHI Vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 3205/2019

KARAN BAKSHI

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr. Vikas Jain, Adv.

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

..... RespondentThrough:Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for Statewith ASI Jai Prakash, PS – Jagat Puriwith ASI Jai Prakash, PS – Jagat Puri

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

O R R%24.12.2019

CRL.M.A. 43585/2019

1.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.Application is disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 3205/2019

3.Present petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with 482Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail in the case FIR No. 185/2019registered at Police Station – Jagat Puri for the offences punishable underSections 406/498-A/34/377 IPC.

4.Brief facts of the case, as stated in the present petition, are that thecomplainant married to the petitioner on 15.02.2017 and just after onemonth,w.e.f.15.03.2017bothstartedresidingseparatelyandnocohabitation took place between them since 15.03.2017. On 31.03.2018 both

parties entered into an hand written as well as typed settlement deed forseeking divorce by mutual consent which was duly witnessed by grant fatherand maternal uncle of the complainant, respectively.

5.On 05.04.2018, the complainant and petitioner filed the petition underSection 13 (B) (1) of the HMA, which was listed on 09.04.2018 but on thesaid date, none appeared due to strike of lawyers. On 24.05.2018, thecomplainant withdrew the petition giving reason that she does not want togive divorce. Thereafter, complainant filed the present complaint in CAWcell on 28.06.2018, after about one year and 3 months of separation.Thereafter, the present FIR had been registered on 19.07.2019.

6.Consequently, petitioner received the notice under Section 41 (A)Cr.P.C. by concerned IO and then the petitioner filed the bail applicationunder Section 438 Cr.P.C. for seeking anticipatory bail and the AdditionalSessions Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi Vide order dated 27.11.2019,granted the interim protection to the petitioner till 16.12.2019 and asked thepetitioner to join the investigation on 29.11.2019.

7.The petitioner joined the investigation as directed and then the abovementioned application of petitioner again came for hearing on 16.11.2019before the District and Sessions Judge, Shahdara District, Delhi. On thatdate, the IO of the case for the first time stated before Court that he has notyet received the permission to arrest the petitioner from the concerned courtand in view of his statement, the Court gave the protection to the petitionerfor 7 days notice period, before the IO wants to arrest the petitioner.

8.The petitioner was served the notice by IO on 19.12.2019 andthereafter the petitioner again filed the bail application under Section 438

Cr.P.C. for seeking anticipatory bail and the same was declined by theDistrict and Sessions Judge, Shahdara District, Delhi vide order dated21.12.2019.

9.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of thepetitioner with the complainant was solemnised on 15.02.2017. However,since 15.03.2017, complainant and the petitioner are living separately. Theyhave not co-habited with each other. The present case has been filed by thecomplainant in order to further harass the petitioner and his family members.He further submits that the parties had entered into written settlement dated31.03.2018, which was duly signed by Sant Lai Arora, Shri Mulakh RajGaba from complainant's side. On 31.03.2018, typed settlement deed wasalso entered into between the complainant and the petitioner.

10.Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of thisCourt towards the order dated 16.11.2019 of the learned Trial Court,whereby at request of the learned counsel for the complainant, the protectionofficer was directed to accompany the complainant for her matrimonialhouse to enabling her to search and obtain her clothes, certificates andpassport on 20.11.2019 at 11 AM. However, the protection officer wasgranted liberty to seek police assistance in the present case. The complainantwas not available on the said date, therefore, the house could not besearched.

11.On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, oninstructions from the complainant, submits that the settlement and the firstmotion of the divorce was filed under the pressure of the family. Therefore,whatever is stated in the settlement and the first motion filed before the

Judge, shall not be taken into consideration. Moreover, the dowry articlesare with the petitioner which may be directed to be recovered from him.

12.Regarding the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inon 16.11.2019 before the learned Trial Court, the learned counsel for thecomplainant only sought clothes, certificates and passport which were to betaken from the matrimonial house. It is nowhere mentioned by thecomplainant that her jewellery is also with the petitioner knowing well thatshe already had all the jewellery with her. However, the remaining articleswhich were given, were given as gift to the family members of the petitionerand thus, the said items are not the dowry articles. Learned counsel for thepetitioner, on instructions, submits that if the settlement takes place, thepetitioner is ready to return the articles mentioned therein to thecomplainant.

13.Keeping in view the fact that the first motion filed before the learnedSessions Judge alongwith the affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitionerand the complainant married on 15.02.2017 and just after one month i.e.15.03.2017, both have been residing separately and no cohabitation hastaken place between them since 15.03.2017. Thereafter, first motion wasfiled and withdrawn by the counsel and only thereafter, she approached theCAW Cell on 28.06.2018, after which her complaint culminated into thepresent FIR.

14.It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been interrogated and joinedthe investigation pursuant to the directions passed by the learned TrialCourt. Thus, he is not required for further investigation.

15.However, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case,

I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail.

16.Accordingly, the SHO/Arresting Officer/IO concerned, is herebydirected that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail onfurnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety in thelike amount subject to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/SHO/IOconcerned.

17.Before parting with the order, it is relevant to mention that nothingcontained in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits ofthe case.

18.Application stands allowed and disposed of.

19.Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J

DECEMBER 24, 2019