DELHI HIGH COURT
Bench: JUSTICE Pradeep Nandrajog
RAJESH CHANDER BHARDWAJ
STATE On 19 Jul 2005
Petitioner No. 1 was married to Ms. Snehlata Bhardwaj. Petitioner No. 2 is a mom of postulant No. 1.
2. The matrimony was not too happy. FIR in doubt has been purebred on a censure done by a mother alleging dowry nuisance during a hands of her husband.
3. Two children have been innate to a postulant and a complainant. The children are with a complainant.
4. It is not in brawl that a complainant is staying in a matrimonial house, though in a apart partial thereof. It is also not in brawl that a postulant No. 1 is profitable Rs. 4,000 p.m. to a complainant towards upkeep for a dual children. It is also not in brawl that a complainant is not spending any volume towards H2O and electricity consumed by her as also on a upkeep of a apportionment of a residence in her possession.
5. Petitioner No. 1 is earning Rs. 10,500 p.m. Complainant is earning Rs. 9800 p.m.
6. we have perused a FIR that is a common story of an unfortunate marriage. Usual allegations opposite woe and mental nuisance are set out.
7. Proceedings underneath Sections 498A/406/34, IPC are not to be converted into liberation proceedings. However, it is a enterprise of a Court to try and safeguard that matrimonial disputes are resolved. Attempts were done in a benefaction box in this direction, though unfortunately have failed.
8. Considering a fact that a complainant is still staying in a matrimonial house, though in a apart apportionment thereof and a fact that she and her children are differently being supposing with upkeep by a postulant No. 1, we am prone to acknowledge a petitioners to anticipatory bail as prayed for. It has to be additionally remarkable that a petitioners have cooperated with a questioning officer during enquiry. Since 6.2.2004 petitioners are underneath halt protection.
9. Petition stands likely of with a instruction that in a eventuality of arrest, on petitioners furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 5,000 with one collateral in a like volume to a compensation of a Arresting Officer, postulant would be expelled on bail in FIR No. 39/2004 P.S. Narela.
10. It would be a condition of a benefaction sequence that a petitioners would join a review as and when required.
11. Needless to state that a anticipatory bail postulated would be coterminous with a preference on a focus for unchanging bail, if any, compulsory to be filed by a petitioners, shold a challan be presented opposite them.
Petition likely of.