IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 18th December, 2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 2999/2018 Crl.M.A. 50066/2018
SATISH DAHIYA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gagan Chawla, Adv.
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP
for the State with W/ASI
Sushma, PS Uttam Nagar.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
1. The first information report (FIR) no. 942/2018 has been
registered by police station Uttam Nagar on 09.10.2018 for
investigation into offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The said FIR has been instituted by Sheetal
Kadian with whom the petitioner was married on 27.11.2017. The
petitioner, apprehending arrest, had earlier moved bail application (no.
30167/2018) in the court of sessions. His application was dismissed by
order dated 11.12.2018 of the said court whereafter he has approached
this Court by the present application under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), his prime submission being that
the complainant of the case herself is guilty of deserting him and
subjecting him and members of his family to cruelty, the marriage of
Bail Application no. 2999/2018 Page 1 of 4
the parties being an arranged one in which there was no demand or
exchange of dowry and, therefore, the allegations of harassment for
dowry have been falsely cooked up. It is alleged by the petitioner that
the complainant had stayed in the matrimonial home only for a few
days whereafter she, having quarreled with him and his family, had
left his society on 09.12.2017 with her entire jewellery and money.
He would also refer to an incident on 16.03.2018 wherein the
complainant, according to him, had made an attempt to forcibly enter
his house with the aid and assistance of members of her parental
family, photographs of CCTV footage in such regard having been
placed on record. He refers to certain photographs of the complainant
on social media which precede the date of marriage of the parties, the
same according to him, indicating that the jewellery which is stated to
have given in dowry actually was not purchased for purposes of the
marriage of the parties.
2. The FIR has been registered on the basis of complaint which
was presented on 16.03.2018 to DCP Crime against Women Cell,
immediately after the events of 15th and 16th March, 2018. The
petitioner also relies on an interview given by the complainant to
certain news channels according to which, as per the petitioner, the
complainant had admitted that she was not living in the matrimonial
home for certain period.
3. During the course of hearing, it was brought to light that the
petitioner has not returned any of the Streedhan articles, not even the
jewellery items, the only property restored being a car which was
Bail Application no. 2999/2018 Page 2 of 4
concededly given as part of the dowry in the marriage. The counsel
for the complainant submitted that the jewellery articles which have
been subjected to criminal mis-appropriation are themselves worth
over Rs. 27 lakhs, it being inconceivable that the complainant would
have left with the entire said property in the circumstances in which
she was forced to go out of the matrimonial home. The petitioner,
however, would insist that there is no streedhan article, not even any
piece of jewellery of the complainant, in his possession or control. He
submitted that proof of purchase of jewellery, of value a little over Rs.
9 lakhs only has been mustered, the claim of jewellery worth more
than that amount being baseless and concocted.
4. The above submission, by itself, prima facie, belies the
contention that in the marriage of the parties, no precious gifts were
given by the parental family of the complainant. On the contrary, the
photographs of the dowry articles, as given in the marriage
ceremonies, are part of the evidence which has been gathered
verification, as admitted by the petitioner himself, of a substantial part
having already been done.
5. The allegations in the FIR make out a very serious case of
harassment of the petitioner in the matrimonial home, the petitioner
being party to the acts of commission or omission causing such
harassment, during the short period the complainant stayed there. The
complainant has also levelled allegations of the petitioner being
vicious to the extent of he having beaten her up, during midnight and
having attempted to force her into unnatural sex and having disrobed
Bail Application no. 2999/2018 Page 3 of 4
her at a public place in the presence of others. It does appear that at
the instance of the sister of the petitioner, two FIRs have been
registered against the complainant, they being FIR no. 182/2018 of
police station Saket under Sections 323/506 and FIR No. 257/2018 of
police station Dwarka South for offences under Sections 506/509/34
IPC. But, mere registration of the said FIRs against the complainant at
the instance of the sister of the petitioner is no reason why allegations
of the complainant in the present FIR be treated as those of suspect
6. From the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it is
clear that he is disinclined to cooperate with investigation or sit across
and resolve the dispute amicably, possibly through the processes of
mediation or conciliation. He is also not inclined to offer himself, or
his house, for search for the recovery of the streedhan articles. The
allegations against him in the FIR cannot be brushed aside as
unfounded; they would require probe.
7. Given these facts, and the position taken by the petitioner, this
court is not inclined to admit the petitioner to anticipatory bail.
8. The petition and the applications filed therewith are dismissed.
DECEMBER 18, 2018
Bail Application no. 2999/2018 Page 4 of 4