Pinky Malik & Anr vs State on 20 April, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 2933 / 2017

1. Pinky Malik W/o Sh. Umesh Malik

2. Piyus Malik S/o Sh. Umesh Malik, Both B/c Panjabi Hindu, R/o
G-2, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-2, Delhi-110048
—-Petitioners
Versus
The State of Rajasthan P.p
—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Vyas.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arjun Singh, PP.
For complainant : Mr. Haidar Agha.
Ms. Panna Choudhary, SHO, P.S. Mahila (West), Jodhpur.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Judgment / Order

20/04/2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the

case diary.

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of

the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R.

No.07/2017, registered at Mahila Police Station (West), Jodhpur

for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.
(2 of 3)
[CRLMB-2933/2017]

Upon a perusal of the case diary, it is apparent that the

marriage of complainant Smt. Anjali was solemnised with the

petitioner NO.2 Piyush Malik on 06.02.2013. She gave birth to a

male child in the year 2015. There are allegations of continuous

misbehaviour with the complainant during this period of about 4

years on account of demand of cash to the tune of

Rs.11,00,000/-. The misbehaviour exceeded to that extent that

she had to be provided police assistance while leave the

matrimonial home. As per the material available on record,

complainant was forced out of the matrimonial home wearing only

clothes and thus apparently, ornaments of the complainant are

retained with the accused. The list of articles deposited by the

READ  Dr. Niladri Topdar vs Sanhoti Topdar (Banerjee) on 2 May, 2017

accused does not reflect return of a single piece of ornament of

the complainant. In this background, I am not inclined to enlarge

the petitioner No.2 Piyush Malik, being the husband of the

complainant, on anticipatory bail. Thus, the application for pre-

arrest bail filed on his behalf is rejected.

However, the petitioner No.1 Pinky Malik is a woman and

having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances as

reflected from the record, she deserves indulgence of anticipatory

bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed in part and it is

directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Pinky Malik in

connection with F.I.R.No.07/2017, registered at Mahila Police

Station (West), Jodhpur, the petitioner shall be released on bail;

provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-

along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of
(3 of 3)
[CRLMB-2933/2017]

the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following

conditions :-

(i). that the petitioner shall make herself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the court or any police officer; and

(iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous
permission of the court.

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

Tikam/9

Leave a Comment

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