Case registered under Section 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC - Complainant returned from Australia to India in May 2005 leaving her children with her husband - Complainant lodged FIR against her husband, in-laws family including petitioners who were their distant relatives - Bail application allowed

DELHI HIGH COURT

Before :- S.N. Aggarwal, J.
Bail Application 3846 of 2006. D/d. 1.11.2006.

Avinash Aggarwal - Petitioner Versus State - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Rajiv Chandhok and Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Advocates.
For the State :- Mr. Sunil K. Kapoor, A.P.P.
For the Complainant :- Mr. A.S. Rastogi, Advocate.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498, 406 and 34 - Anticipatory bail - Application for anticipatory bail - Case registered against them under Section 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC - Petitioners distant relatives of complainant - Plea of petitioners that they had been falsely roped in a case - Marriage of complainant was solemnized on 16-02-2004 and she went to Australia along with her husband on 10-04-2004 - Complainant returned from Australia to India in May 2005 leaving her children with her husband -After complainant returned from Australia to India in May 2005 she lodged F.I.R. in October 2006 not only against her husband but also against other members of her in-laws family including petitioners who were their distant relatives - Petitioners being permanent residents of Delhi - First time offenders - No apprehension of their absconding from trial - Held, petitioner entitled to grant of anticipatory bail on their executing bail bond in Sum of Rs. 25,000, each with one surety each in like amount in view of facts and circumstances of case - Hence, bail application allowed.

ORDER

Bail Application. Nos. 3846 & 3863/2006
1. The petitioners seek their anticipatory bail in case under Sections 498-A/406/34, I.P.C. registered against them vide F.I.R. No. 612/ 2006 with Police Station, Vasant Kunj.
2. Notice, Mr. Sunil K. Kapoor accepts notice of this application on behalf of the respondent/State. The complainant along with her Counsel Mr. A.S. Rastogi, Advocate is also present.
3. The petitioner No. 1 is the cousin brother of complainant's husband and petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioners being the distant relatives of the complainant have been falsely roped in the present case only on account of some matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband.
4. The learned Counsel for the complainant on the other hand has argued that the petitioners were the mediators through whom the marriage of the complainant was solemnized and according to him they have not helped in persuading the main accused to settle the matter.
5. This argument urged on behalf of the complainant has not impressed me. The marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 16.2.2004. She went to Australia along wilt her husband on 10.4.2004 and returned from there to India in May, 2005 leaving her children with her husband. After she returned from Australia to India in May, 2005 she lodged the present F.I.R. in October, 2006 not only against her husband but also against other members of her in-laws' family including the petitioners who are their distant relatives. The petitioners are the permanent residents of Delhi. They are first time offenders. There is no apprehension of their absconding from the trial.
6. In view of the above and having regard to other facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are admitted to anticipatory bail on their executing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer. However, the petitioners are directed that they shall participate In the investigation as and when called by the I.O.

Bail Application allowed.