Cancelletion bail denied

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE
Crl. M.C. No. 2785 of 2007
Judgment reserved on: November 14, 2007
Judgment delivered on: November 16, 2007
Smt. Poonam ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. R.N. Mishra, Advocate
Vs.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others ….. Respondent
Through:
FIR No. 199/2007
P.S. :M.S. Park (CAW Cell N/E District)
Under Sect. : 498-A/406/34 IPC
Coram:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
V.B. GUPTA, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 439(2)
CrPC for cancelling the bail granted to the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 on 27.4.2007 in
the above noted case. It has been stated in the present petition that on 27.4.2007
when the bail application filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 7, came up for final
hearing, then the petitioner was not accompanied by her counsel other than the
Addl. Public Prosecutor and on that date a statement was made on behalf of
learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 7 that the complainant has settled all her
disputes with the accused persons for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The petitioner was
not accompanied by her counsel and thus there was no occasion to show positive
attitude by the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is young in age and well
educated and even her parents are not educated or conversant with the court
procedure and do not understand the technicality and the consequences of law. The
petitioner was not given ample time to understand the pros and cons of the
compromise and there was no reason for the petitioner to settle with respondent
Nos. 2 with regard to her past, present and future maintenance and in lieu of all
remaining dowry articles which she had yet to recover from the respondent. So
under these circumstances, the anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos. 2 to 7
be cancelled. I have summoned the original bail order, the certified copy of which
has been placed on record. The relevant portion of this bail order reads as under:-
?27.4.2007. Present: Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for the six applicants/accused.
Sh. B.S. Kain Addl. PP for the State with IO ASI Dharampal Accompanied by Complainant/wife Poonam and her parents Narain Singh and Laxmi. Arguments advanced on behalf of the parties have been heard and in the course thereof, it is learnt from ld. Counsel for the applicant that with the positive attitude of the Ld. Counsel for the parties, both the parties have already arrived at an amicable settlement. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicants/accused that as per settlement applicants in all would pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (One lakh fifty thousand) to the complainant/wife in lieu of amicable settlement of all civil and criminal disputes between them; grant of decree of divorce between the parties by mutual consent; quashing of FIR in question; in lieu of all the remaining dowry articles and in lieu of withdrawal of any other civil or criminal case pending between the parties which may not be in knowledge of the other party, past present and future maintenance of the complainant/wife, excluding the maintenance and custody of the child Hritik aged eight months born out of the wedlock. Each of the above facts have been verified by Ld. Counsel for the complainant/wife after discussing the same with the complainant/wife and her parents present in the court.
It is also jointly submitted on behalf of the parties that whatever dowry articles have been recovered and are lying in the P.S be given to the complainant/wife.
Investigating Officer is directed to do so. With respect to the mode of payment, it is jointly submitted by and on behalf of the parties that a sum of Rs.50,000/- would be paid to the complainant/wife at the time of first and second motion respectively for a decree of divorce with mutual consent of the parties, so as to complete the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) to her and balance amount of Rs.50,000/-
(fifty thousand) shall by paid to her at the time of quashing of the FIR in question or at the time of conclusion of criminal cases against the accused persons favourable to them. In the over all facts and circumstances of this case, SHO P.S M.S. Park/IO-CAW Cell N/E Distt., of the case are directed that in the event of arrest, the accused/applicants, shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety of the like amount by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO of the P.S concerned, subject to the condition that they shall join investigation as and when called for by the Investigating Officer.? The record will show that the bail order was passed in the presence of the complainant as well as her parents. Further, the bail order deals with all the aspects with regard to the settlement between the parties and the mode of payment has also been prescribed ; i.e, to what amount has been paid at the time of first motion; what amount to be paid at the time of second motion of the divorce petition and what amount shall be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR. Now, if the petitioner thinks that there was no reason to make such settlement at the time when the respondents were granted anticipatory bail, she would be at liberty not to go for divorce or for quashing of the FIR, registered against the respondents.
Under these circumstances, no ground is made out for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents. Hence the present petition is dismissed.
Sd./-
V. B. GUPTA.J
November 16, 2007

Leave a Comment

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