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.
1. State Of Rajasthan through PP.
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)
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
State Of Rajasthan Through P P
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
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
(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dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file application under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
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
(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.