SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Parag Bansal & Ors. vs State on 12 January, 2018

$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 12.01.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 1850/2017

PARAG BANSAL ORS ….. Petitioners

versus
STATE ….. Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mandeep Singh Vinaik with Ms.
Anjali Sharma, Mr. Shashwat
Bhardwaj and Mr. Manish Lamba, Advocates.

For the Respondents : Mr. Akshai Malik, APP
SI Baljinder Singh, PS Darya Ganj.
Mr. Rajiv Khosla, Advocate for
complainant.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT

12.01.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.165/2017
though initially registered under Section 354/323/506/34 IPC, Police
Station, Darya Ganj. However, subsequently, a charge under Section
376 IPC has also been added qua petitioner Vishal Bansal and
petitioner Puneet Bansal, the brothers of the husband of the
complainant.

BAIL APPLN. 1850-2017 Page 1 of 4

2. The FIR initially registered was on the complaint of the
complainant alleging that the petitioners had called her to Mahavir
Vatika, Darya Ganj to discuss an amicable resolution of matrimonial
dispute, which was pending between the parties. The FIR alleges that
the petitioner assaulted the complainant and misbehaved with her,
within the meaning of Section 354 of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
complainant is an advocate by profession and, because a matrimonial
discord, had first lodged a complaint with the Crime Against Women
Cell on 02.08.2017 alleging demands of dowry. It is contended that the
marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the complainant was
solemnized on 07.12.2015 and, since 16.07.2016, they have been
living separately.

4. It is further contended that after lodging a complaint with the
Crime Against Women Cell, a complaint was lodged under Section 12
of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Thereafter, consequent to complaint made on 02.08.2017, FIR
No.35/2017 was registered against the petitioners and his family
members on 28.01.2017 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC. The
petitioner No.1 was enlarged on anticipatory bail on 22.05.2017, in
case FIR No.35/2017. It is contended that the complainant thereafter
filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure against the petitioner No.1 on 01.06.2017. Thereafter, the
subject FIR was lodged qua the alleged incident on 10.07.2017.

BAIL APPLN. 1850-2017 Page 2 of 4

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the FIR
notices that at the spot when the police officials arrived, crowd had
already assembled. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that none of the above referred complaints starting from the
first complaint lodged on 02.08.2016, no allegation was made against
the petitioners of having committed the offence under Section 376
IPC. It is contended that, for the first time, on 17.07.2017, the
complainant made a statement under Section 164 IPC making
allegations of offence under Section 376 having been committed by
the petitioners Vishal Bansal and Puneet Bansal on 10.07.2017 and
earlier.

6. It is contended that all allegations are false. The complainant,
who is well educated and is practicing as an Advocate and aware of
her rights, has sought to improve upon her story, to falsely implicate
the petitioners. It is further contended that interim protection was
granted to the petitioner on 14.09.2017, which is continuing till date
and none of the petitioners have misused the same.

7. Without commenting upon the merits of the case of either of the
parties but noticing the undisputed fact that the allegation of offence
under Section 376 IPC having been committed is not mentioned in any
of the complaint, lodged after 02.08.2016 till 17.07.2017, and without
opining on the explanation of the respondent for its absence, I am of
the view that the petitioners are entitled to the grant of anticipatory
bail. Furthermore, it is noticed that the petitioners have not misused

BAIL APPLN. 1850-2017 Page 3 of 4
the protection granted earlier and there is no allegation that they have
failed to join investigation as and when called upon to do so.

8. In view of the above, in the event of arrest of the petitioners, the
petitioners shall be released on bail by the Investigating
Officer/SHO/Arresting Officer on petitioners furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/SHO/Arresting Officer
concerned. The petitioners shall join investigation as and when so
required by the Investigating Officer and the petitioners shall ensure
that they do nothing which shall prejudice the process of investigation
or the trial.

9. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 12, 2018
st

BAIL APPLN. 1850-2017 Page 4 of 4

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh