Akshay Kumar vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 13 November, 2017

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 852/2017
Order Reserved on: 8th November, 2017
Order Pronounced on:13th November, 2017
AKSHAY KUMAR …..Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rita Kumar and Ms. Sonam Nagrath
Kohli, Advocates.
versus

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ….Respondent

Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP for the
State Mr. Manish Vashist, Complainant.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure 1973, (hereinafter referred to as ‘
Cr.P.C.’)
the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.18/2017
under
Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘
IPC’) registered at Police Station, Pandav Nagar,
New Delhi. Status Report is on record.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that, on 14.01.2017 a complaint
was lodged by one Nisha against her husband Akshay
Kumar/present-petitioner, wherein she alleged that she was
kidnapped by the petitioners and his family members at Begusaray
in Bihar in the month of May 2016; that although a complaint was
lodged by her father to the Police Station of Nagar in Begusaray,
however no action was taken; that thereafter the complainant’s

BAIL APPLN. 852/2017 Page 1 of 5
father moved an application before the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Begusaray, upon which a compromise was arrived at
between the family members of both the petitioner and the
complainant and their marriage was solemnized on 16.05.2016 in
Begusaray; that at the time of marriage the complainant’s parents
gave dowry articles to the petitioner’s family as per their status; that
soon after the marriage, the behaviour of the petitioner and his
family changed towards the complainant and they started hurling
abuses and making cast based comments upon the complainant and
his family members; that the petitioner showed his dissatisfaction
on the dowry articles received during marriage and demanded Rs. 5
lakhs and one motorcycle from the complainant; that at that time
the complainant did not lodge any complaint under the fear of the
petitioner and his family members as they threatened her that they
would get the petitioner married elsewhere; that thereafter the
complainant was sent back to her paternal house without any
cogent reason; that on 18.07.2016 at about 8 p.m. the petitioner
came to the complainant’s house and started abusing her and also
tried to hit her for getting his demands fulfilled; that hence
thereafter the present complaint was lodged.

3. Ms. Rita Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and all
the allegations so made by the complainant are totally false and
concocted, to humiliate and harass the petitioner and his family;
that the petitioner and the complainant knew each other forone year
and the marriage was a love marriage; that the petitioner is a Civil

BAIL APPLN. 852/2017 Page 2 of 5
Engineering student and so his father had arranged for a separate
rented accommodation for him and the complainant; that the
complainant stayed with the petitioner only for 2 months after
marriage and thereafter she returned to her maternal home; that the
complainant herself demanded Rs 5 Lakhs from the petitioner to
dissolve the present marriage and threatened to harass and
humiliate him and his family if her demands were not fulfilled; that
the complainant has also alleged false kidnapping charges against
the petitioner; that no demand was ever made by the petitioner or
his family members as alleged by the complainant; that the mother
of the petitioner has lodged a complaint dated 08.10.2016 of the
erratic behaviour of the complainant; that the complainant is
already married to one Arjun Das with whom her marriage has not
been dissolved till date; that the petitioner has been joining
investigation as and when required and called for; that there is no
likelihood of the petitioner either absconding or fleeing from
justice; that the petitioner undertakes to abide by all terms and
conditions that may be imposed by this Court; that hence in the
aforementioned circumstances, anticipatory bail be granted to the
petitioner.

4. Per Contra, Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, learned APP for the State
opposed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and
submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of
harassing and humiliating the complainant with demands of dowry.
The learned Counsel also drew Court’s attention to the documents
whereby the complainant was allegedly kidnapped by the petitioner

BAIL APPLN. 852/2017 Page 3 of 5
and submitted that to escape the said proceedings the petitioner had
married the complainant. It was further submitted that when the
proceedings were going on before the CAW Cell , the complainant
and her mother had sustained injuries on two occasions during a
quarrel which had taken place with the petitioner and the said fact
is supported by the MLC of the complainant and her mother.
Counsel argued that in view of the nature and gravity of the alleged
offence, the present petition for anticipatory bail be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.

6. For the purpose of deciding the present bail application, this Court
need not go into the merits of the case, but only consider whether
the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of
anticipatory bail.

7. By an order dated 08.05.2017, the petitioner was granted interim
protection by this Court and was directed to join the investigation
as and when required. Undisputedly, the petitioner has joined the
investigation since then.

8. Moreover, during the course of arguments, Mr. Ashok Kumar
Garg, learned APP for the State, on the instructions of the
Investigating Officer submitted that the petitioner is no longer
required for custodial interrogation.

9. Hence so far as the question of the petitioner fleeing away from the
processes of law or not being available to participate in the
investigation is concerned, neither any apprehension in this regard
has been expressed by the Investigating Agency nor there is any

BAIL APPLN. 852/2017 Page 4 of 5
such fact which could be made a basis to assume that the petitioner
will flee away from the process of the law.

10. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
satisfied that it is a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the
petitioner – Akshay Kumar subject to the following conditions:-

(i) the petitioner shall furnish his personal bond to the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/SHO concerned;

(ii) the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called
by the Investigating Officer by notice in writing and shall
cooperate with the investigation of the case;

(iii) the petitioner shall not leave NCT without intimation to
the Police Station /I.O concerned.

11. The petitioner is further directed that he shall not tamper with the
evidence and influence the prosecution witnesses.

12. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

13. 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.

14. Copy of this Order be given dasti under the signature of the Court
Master.

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

BAIL APPLN. 852/2017 Page 5 of 5

Leave a Comment

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