SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nisha Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 20 March, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation No. 177/2017

Nisha Sharma, wife of Vinay Kumar, D/o of Meghraj, R/o Village
Kolida, Tehsil Distt. Sikar.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through PP.
—-Non-petitioner
2. Rajkumar Sharma, S/o Late Shri Gauri Shankar Rinwa
3. Smt. Shashi Rinwa, w/o Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma
4. Kumari Sunita D/o Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma
All by caste Brahmin, Rinwa, r/o Ratangarh, Distt. Churu, at
present residing at house No.1592, Sector – 28, Faridabad,
Police Station, Sector 31, Faridabad (Haryana)
—-Respondent

Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 1407/2018
Vinay Kumar Sharma s/o Sh. Rajkumar Sharma aged about 37
years, by caste Brahmin, R/o Ratangarh District Churu Raj. At
present resident of House no.1592 Sector 28, Faridabad, P.S.
Sector 31, Faridabad (Haryana) India

—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through P P

—-Respondent

For Complainant : Mr. Anoop Dhand
For Accused : Mr. Hemant Taylor
For State : Mr. Sudesh Saini PP. Mr. Ram
Manohar SHO, P.S. Udyog Nagar,
Sikar (Investigating Officer).

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

20/03/2018

1. Petitioner-Nisha Sharma has filed this Criminal Bail

Cancellation Application No.177/2017 under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.

and petitioner-Vinay Kumar Sharma has filed Criminal

Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1407/2018 under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C.

(2 of 4) [CRLBC-177/2017]

2. F.I.R. No. 394/2017 was registered at Police Station Udhyog

Nagar, Sikar for offence under Sections 498A and 406 of I.P.C.

3. In Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No.177/2017 of

Nisha Sharma filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., it is contended

by counsel for the petitioner that respondent Nos.2 to 4 have

taken bail from the Court by concealing material facts. It is

contended that before the Court below, it was mentioned that

complainant’s husband Vinay Kumar Sharma had moved an

application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage which was

dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file application under

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

4. It is contended that this fact was wrong as Vinay Kumar

Sharma had already moved an application under Section 13 of

Hindu Marriage Act prior to the withdrawal of application under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is also contended that

respondent Nos.2 to 4 have broken the lock of the Almirah and

separate complaint was filed by the complainant in this regard.

5. As far as Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application

No.1407/2018 of Vinay Kumar Sharma under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is contended by counsel for the petitioner

that parties were not at good terms, as a result of which petitioner

moved application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and,

thereafter, under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act which was prior

to the lodging of the FIR. The allegations in the FIR were regard to

Sections 498-A and 406 IPC but later on Section 377 IPC was

added.

6. It is also contended that in the reply to the divorce petition,
(3 of 4) [CRLBC-177/2017]
complainant has not levelled any allegations with regard to

unnatural offence, rather she has mentioned that she wants to

stay with the petitioner.

7. Counsel for accused has opposed the Criminal Bail

Cancellation Application. His contention is that there was dispute

between husband and wife and wife left the matrimonial home and

husband moved an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage

Act on 12.05.2016. Subsequently, husband also moved an

application under Section 13 on 10.10.2016 and since application

under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act was moved, there was no

reason for pursuing the application under Section 9 of Hindu

Marriage Act, which was consequently withdrawn on 12.05.2017.

8. It is also contended that mentioning of fact of filing of

Section 13 application has no consequence on the case.

Respondents have returned the dowry articles which father of the

complainant refused to take from the police. Police did not found it

to be a case of breaking of lock of the Almirah. Investigating

Officer is present in person in this Court who has affirmed that the

lock was intact.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor hase opposed the anticipatory bail

application of petitioner-Vinay Kumar Sharma. His contention is

that there being allegation under Section 377 IPC, anticipatory bail

should not be granted.

10. I have considered the contentions.

11. Considering the arguments put forth by counsel for the

parties, I do not find it a fit case for cancelling the bail granted by

the Court, hence, the application for cancellation of bail is rejected
(4 of 4) [CRLBC-177/2017]
and application for anticipatory bail of petitioner-Vinay Kumar

Sharma is allowed.

12. S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 177/2017 is

rejected and Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.

1407/2018 of petitioner-Vinay Kumar Sharma is allowed. The

S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Udhyog nagar, Sikar in

F.I.R. No.394/2017 is directed that in the event of arrest of the

petitioner-Vinay Kumar Sharma shall be released on bail, provided

petitioner-Vinay Kumar Sharma furnishes a personal bond in the

sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-

each to his satisfaction on the following conditions :-

(i). that the petitioner-Vinay Kumar Sharma shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer as and when
required;

(ii). that the petitioner-Vinay Kumar Sharma 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-Vinay Kumar Sharma shall not leave India

without previous permission of the court.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

Seema/3-4

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