SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Swarnima Kulshrestha vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 22 February, 2018

S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation No. 13 / 2018
Swarnima Kulshrestha W/o Ansul Kulshrestha, R/o Katewa Nagar,
New Sanganer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
1. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

2. Poonam Kulshrestha W/o Late Shri Anil Kulshrestha, R/o B-
14/90 Himgiri Apartment, Sector-34, Noida, U.P.

Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 1157 / 2018
Rahul Kulshreshtha son of Late Shri Anil Kulshreshtha, resident of
B-14/90, Himgiri Apartment, Section-34, Noida, U.P.



State Of Rajasthan Through Pp


1. For Petitioner-complainant(s): Mr. Rambabu Sharma in Bail
Cancellation Application No. 13/2018

2. For Petitioner(s): Mr. Shrey Gaharana in Criminal Misc.

Anticipatory Bail No. 1157/2018

3. For Accused-Respondent(s): Mr. Shrey Gaharana in Bail
Cancellation Application No. 13/2018

4. For Complainant(s): Mr. Rambabu Sharma in Criminal misc.

Bail Application No.1157/2018

5. For State(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP

1. Petitioner-Swarnima Kulshrestha has filed this miscellaneous
(2 of 4)
[ CRLBC-13/2018]

bail cancellation application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. and

petitioner-Rahul Kulshreshtha has filed criminal misc. anticipatory

bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.66/2017 was registered at Police Station Mahila

Thana South, Jaipur for offence under Sections 498-A, 406, 323,

354, 341 of I.P.C.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner-Swarnima

Kulshrestha that respondent No.2-Poonam Kulshrestha has

misstated the fact of return of dowry articles and on that basis she

has obtained bail from the Court.

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner-Rahul

Kulshreshtha that false allegations have been levelled against him

under Section 354 IPC. An agreement took place between the

complainant and her husband which was signed by all the relatives

on 17.1.2016 and thereafter complainant started living at Gurgaon

with her husband.

5. It is contended that in the compromise, there is no allegation

with regard to outraging modesty. It is also contended that there

is no allegation with regard to demand of dowry and with regard

to treating the complainant with cruelty.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

have opposed the Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 1157/2018

of Rahul Kulshrestha. Their contention is that petitioner-Rahul

Kulshrestha has outraged the modesty of the complainant. Prior to

the compromise which was arrived at between the complainant

and the prosecutrix is of 17.1.2016.

(3 of 4)
[ CRLBC-13/2018]

7. I have considered the contentions.

8. Considering the contentions of counsel for the parties, in the

Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No.13/2018, respondent

No.2-Poonam Kulshrestha was given benefit of bail by this Court

as she is a widow lady and a senior citizen and her custodial

interrogation was not required. Further after 17.1.2016, her son

was staying separately with the complainant, hence, I do not

deem it proper to entertain application for cancellation of bail. The

same is rejected.

9. As far as the anticipatory bail application of petitioner-Rahul

Kulshreshtha in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 1157/2018, is

concerned, there has been no allegation of outraging modesty of

complainant in the compromise which took place on 17.1.2016.

Marriage of complainant took place in the year, 2013 and after a

belated period, she has levelled allegations against petitioner-

Rahul Kulshreshtha, hence, I deem it proper to allow the

anticipatory bail application of Rahul kulshreshtha.

10. Application for cancellation of bail of respondent No.2-

Poonam Kulshreshtha is rejected and the anticipatory bail

application of Rahul Kulshreshtha is allowed. The

S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana, South,

Jaipur in F.I.R. No.66/2017 is directed that in the event of arrest

of the petitioner-Rahul Kulshreshtha he shall be released on bail,

provided he 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 :-

(4 of 4)
[ CRLBC-13/2018]

(i). that the petitioner-Rahul Kulshreshtha shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer as and when

(ii). that the petitioner-Rahul Kulshreshtha 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-Rahul Kulshreshtha shall not leave India

without previous permission of the court.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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