SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Munna Kumar Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 16 March, 2020

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 497/2020

% Reserved on : 2nd March, 2020
Pronounced on: 16th March, 2020

MUNNA KUMAR SINGH ….. Petitioner

Through: Mr. Hrishikesh Barua, Mr.
Nishant Das and Ms. Aayushi
Jain, Advocates.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ….. Respondent

Through: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the
State with SI Vishal Tiwari,
P.S. Hauz Khas.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking grant of
anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 34/2019 under Section 380 IPC,
registered at P.S.Hauz Khas.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant filed a
complaint before the concerned MM and on the directions of the
concerned MM, FIR No. 34 dated 2.2.2019 under Section 380 IPC
was registered at Police Station Hauz Khas. As per the complainant,
he got married to Ms. Chandni Dugar on 18.4.2017 at Le Meridian

Bail Appln. 497/2020 Page 1 of 6
Hotel, New Delhi. After the marriage, the complainant found that her
behavior was very surprising and noticed that she was getting calls on
her mobile to which she used to react differently. Looking into the
strange behavior of his wife the complainant took the mobile phone of
his wife and noted the numbers i.e 8135007700, 8638664993,
7896085531 and 9706037466 and enquired from that person. But he
did not disclose his name and identity. The complainant came to
know that the name of that person is Munna Kumar Singh, the present
petitioner. When the complainant enquired from her wife about the
petitioner, she did not give any satisfactory reply. According to the
complainant since the past few days many of his jewellery items and
cash were being stolen by somebody and he apprehended that it was
his wife, who at the instance of present petitioner or some other male
person, was committing theft. According to the complainant, he had
information that the petitioner with whom his wife used to talk, was
coming to meet her on 3.12.2018 and they would stay together in a
Hotel and indulge in physical relation.

3. During the investigation, notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C was
served on the complainant to get the detail regarding stolen jewellery
and cash. According to the complainant, his wife Ms. Chandni Dugar
(co-accused) has stolen the following jewellery articles and gave the
same to the petitioner for selling purpose. The details of the jewellery
given by the complainant are as follows:-

1. 210 Gms of 24k Gold, 6 coins of 22k 3 Coins of 24K
weighing approximately 78 gms in total (belonging to his
mother Lalita Devi and sister in law Priti Jain).

Bail Appln. 497/2020 Page 2 of 6

2. One Gold Chain (30 gm), (belonging to his mother Lalita
Devi).

3. One gold necklace (40 gm) Gold bangle 35 gms
(belonging to his sister in law Priti Jain).

4. One Navlakha Necklace (belonging to his mother Lalita
Devi recovered from possession of the accused persons and
handed over to him on 03/12/2018 before the registration of
FIR).

5. One diamond bracelet 28 gm (belong to his mother Lalita
Devi.)

6. Cash Rs.1,50,000/- (belong to his mother Lalita Devi and
sister-in-law Priti Jain).

7. Cash Rs.2,00,000/- (payment received for sale of
jewellery from Shrimati Gems Jewels which is complainant
father shop to Anita Chandalia Pramod Chandalia kept in his
house) stolen from the house during the month of April 2018.

8. Dollars USD 1000$ (belong to her mother Lalita Devi).

4. On 3.12.2018, the police went to Hotel Hamilton Lodge where
wife of the complainant was present with the petitioner and thereafter,
both were brought to the police station Hauz Khas. A necklace of the
complainant’s mother was found in possession of co-accused Chandni
Dugar and the same was handed over to the mother of the
complainant. At that time complainant had not taken any action
against his wife Chandni Dugar.

5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner
has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the complaint
filed by the petitioner is nothing but has arisen out of matrimonial
dispute between the complainant and his wife Chandni Dugar. It is

Bail Appln. 497/2020 Page 3 of 6
further submitted that the interim protection was granted to the
petitioner since April 2019 till 11.2.2020 and during this period he has
joined the investigation at least on 10 occasions. It is further argued
that the petitioner has also voluntarily consented to tendering of his
voice samples before FSL Rohini. It is further argued that co-accused
has already been granted bail and he is no more required for any
investigation purposes. Learned counsel for the petitioner, for this
purpose, has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Sham Lal Vs.
State of Punjab, CRM No. M-8001 of 2016 (O M) dated 26.5.2016
and Sahib Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-28505-
2019 dated 26.8.2019. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner
that the complainant had approached the learned MM for registration
of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C after the complaint of co-accused
Chandni Dugar dated 31.12.2018 vide DD No. 38B to the SHO Police
Station Hauz Khas against the complainant, his mother, his brother
and his sister-in-law.

6. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned APP that the
allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature,
recovery of gold and cash has to be effected. It is further argued by
learned APP that the petitioner has not been co-operating in the
investigation despite his joining the investigation on various
occasions.

7. It is not in dispute that the complainant has filed a divorce
petition before the Family Court, Saket on 3.12.2019. A perusal of
para 5(oo) of the divorce petition filed by the complainant against the

Bail Appln. 497/2020 Page 4 of 6
co-accused Chandni Dugar reveals that after seizing jewellery from
the possession of Munna, he was also released by the police. The
petitioner requested the police to register the FIR but the police did not
register the FIR for the reasons best known to them but the fact is that
the complainant himself did not want any action against the petitioner
and co-accused Chandni Dugar.

8. In the proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court on 17.1.2019,
at that time also it was not pointed out by the complainant and his
family members regarding the theft committed by the co-accused
despite the presence of their senior Advocate who had appeared on
their behalf. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant
remained silent even after the recovery of necklace from the co-
accused and did not approach the Magistrate, and approached the
Magistrate on 10.1.2019 (after about a month of that incident). The
complainant has not even given the list of stolen articles on 3.12.2018
before P.S. Haus Khas with regard to earlier thefts.

9. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the present
FIR is a counter-blast to the complaint of co-accused dated 3.12.2018
cannot be brush aside lightly as there is a matrimonial dispute
between the co-accused Chandni Dugar on one side and her husband
and in-laws on the other side and complaints and counter-complaints
are being lodged.

10. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has already joined the
investigation at least 10 times and it is not the case that the petitioner
is not joining the investigation despite the issuance of any further

Bail Appln. 497/2020 Page 5 of 6
notice to him. The co-accused is already on bail. As per the status
report, the petitioner has also given his voice sample to the IO.

11. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the present case, in
the event of arrest, petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of IO/SHO/Duty MM. However, petitioner
shall join the investigation as and when required by the IO.

12. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

13. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression
of any opinion on the merits of the case.

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
MARCH 16, 2020/ib

Bail Appln. 497/2020 Page 6 of 6

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation