Tribhuvan Kr Kaushik vs State on 13 November, 2017

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1855/2017
Order Reserved On: 2nd November, 2017
Order Pronounced On: 13th November, 2017
TRIBHUVAN KR KAUSHIK …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar and Mr. Mohit Singh,
Advocates.
versus
STATE ….Respondent

Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for state.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 439 read with
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) the petitioner seeks grant of regular bail
in FIR No. 886/2016 under Sections 498A/406//34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), registered at
Police Station – Shakar Pur, Delhi. The petitioner is stated to be in
judicial custody since 23.08.2017.

2. The present case has been registered on the complaint of one Soni
Bhardwaj who stated that she was married to the petitioner on
21.02.2015 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies; that the
complainant’s father spent approximately Rs 16 Lakhs at the time
of her marriage out of which Rs 12 Lakhs was given in cash to the
petitioner and his father; that soon after marriage the in-laws of the
complainant, being dissatisfied with the articles gifted at the time
of marriage, started abusing the complainant and made demands
for dowry; that on 03.03.2015 the complainant was sent back to her

BAIL APPLN. 1855/2017 Page 1 of 5
paternal home for getting clothes, gifts, and gold jewellery which
was left to be given at the time of marriage; that the in-laws of the
complainant threatened her that as the petitioner was a practicing
advocate of the Supreme Court he would make her face serious
consequences; that when the complainant’s father gave assurance
to the petitioner and his family for fulfillment of their demands,
the petitioner took complainant back to her matrimonial home on
15.03.2015; that complainant was given various articles and Rs
10,000/- by her father before leaving her paternal home; that the
father-in-law and husband of the complainant after consuming
liquor gave beatings to her and harassed her both mentally and
physically; that the petitioner forced the complainant to indulge
into unnatural sex with him; that on 19.06.2015 the petitioner
demanded a swift car and Rs 4 Lakhs from the complainant ; that
the complainant was again sent to her paternal home on 24.06.2016
to fulfill their demands and was also threatened by the petitioner
that if she fails to do so, her family members would be implicated
in a false case; that hence, the present complaint has been lodged.

3. On 05.12.2016 FIR No. 886/2016 was registered under Sections
498A/406/34 IPC. However after investigation, chargesheet was
filed under Section 498A/377/420/494/34 IPC. The previous bail
application filed by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions
Judge was dismissed vide order dated 06.09.2017. Hence, the
instant bail application.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant to

BAIL APPLN. 1855/2017 Page 2 of 5
wreck vengeance and to extract money; that the present complaint
is a counterblast to the FIR no. 502/2016 registered against the
family members of the complainant by the petitioner’s father; that
neither the petitioner nor his family members ever demanded
dowry articles from the complainant or her family members; that
all the allegations of cruelty and harassment on account of demand
of dowry against the petitioner and his family members are false
and baseless; that complainant was aware of the past relationships
of the petitioner and agreed to enter in alliance of marriage with
knowledge of same; that there are material contradictions in the
statement given by the complainant under Sections 161 164
Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner was not arrested during investigation
and chargesheet was filed against him without being arrested; that
as chargesheet has already been filed and no further investigation is
required hence no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner
in judicial custody, hence in the above mentioned circumstances
bail be granted to the petitioner.

5. Mr. Amit Ahlawat, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed
the bail application of the petitioner and submitted that there are
serious allegations of physical and mental harassment of the
complainant for demand of dowry, against the petitioner; that the
petitioner had abetted and conspired with co-accused persons and
concealed the factum of his previous three marriages from the
complainant and also performed fifth marriage without giving
divorce to the complainant; that the petitioner has been charged
with serious and grave offences for which maximum punishment

BAIL APPLN. 1855/2017 Page 3 of 5
that can imposed is death or Imprisonment for life.; that there is
every possibility of petitioner tampering with the prosecution
evidence and hence the present bail application be dismissed.

6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available on record.

7. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that in the present case,
the complainant has made serious allegations against the petitioner
that he along with his family members had been harassing the
complainant with the demand of dowry. The complainant in her
statement recorded under Sections 161 164 Cr.P.C. has taken a
consistent stand and alleged that soon after her marriage she was
subjected to mental and physical harassment by the petitioner and
his family members due to non fulfillment of their demands of
dowry. Besides the allegations of demand of dowry, the
complainant has also alleged that the petitioner has been forcing
her to indulge in unnatural sex.

8. Furthermore, the complainant has also alleged that the petitioner
has solemnized three marriages before marrying the complainant
and one during the subsistence of his present marriage without
giving divorce to the complainant. The complainant had also
adduced marriage certificates pertaining to the fifth marriage of the
petitioner and divorce decrees in respect of the first and third
marriage of the petitioner. The said documents have been duly
verified during the course of investigation.

9. As per the Status Report, similar complaints have also been lodged
by the first and second wife of the petitioner in respect of which

BAIL APPLN. 1855/2017 Page 4 of 5
FIR No. 235/2005 and FIR No. 330/2012 under Sections
498A/3232/506 IPC read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961,have been registered.

10. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the present case, the nature
and gravity of the alleged offence and in view of the serious
allegations against the petitioner and other factors including
severity of the punishment prescribed in law, I find no sufficient
ground to grant bail to the petitioner.

11. Accordingly, the present bail application filed by the petitioner is
dismissed.

12. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything
observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on the
merits of the case during trial.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
NOVEMBER 13, 2017
//gr

BAIL APPLN. 1855/2017 Page 5 of 5

Leave a Comment

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