Category Archives: Anticipatory in 498a 406 case

498a, 406, 34 proceedings NOT to be become recovery proceedings !! BAIL GRANTED to Husband, Delhi HC

Pathetic case where an employed wife, earning almost as much as husband, living comfortably within the matrimonial home (meaning NO rent), NOT spending a dime on electricity or water and ALSO getting rs 4000 maintenance from husband, FILES 498A etc on husband and co and tries to get him arrested !!

If all of you are trying to blame this politician or that, please read the DATE OF THIS CASE !!!! and that is is from the DELHI HC !!!

Delhi High Court

Rajesh Chander Bhardwaj vs State on 19 July, 2005

Equivalent citations: 125 (2005) DLT 710, I (2006) DMC 60, 2005 (83) DRJ 295

Author: P Nandrajog

Bench: P Nandrajog

JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

  1. Petitioner No. 1 was married to Ms. Snehlata Bhardwaj. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1.
  2. The marriage was not too happy. FIR in question has been registered on the complaint made by the wife alleging dowry harassment at the hands of her husband.
  3. Two children have been born to the petitioner and the complainant. The children are with the complainant.
  4. It is not in dispute that the complainant is residing in the matrimonial house, but in a separate part thereof. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner No. 1 is paying Rs. 4000 p.m. to the complainant towards maintenance for the two children. It is also not in dispute that the complainant is not spending any amount towards water and electricity consumed by her as also on the maintenance of the portion of the house in her possession.
  5. Petitioner No. 1 is earning Rs. 10,500 p.m. Complainant is earning Rs. 9800 p.m.
  6. I have perused the FIR which is the usual story of an unhappy marriage. Usual allegations against torture and mental harassment are set out.
  7. Proceedings under Section 498A/406/34 IPC are not to be converted into recovery proceedings. However, it is the desire of a Court to try and ensure that matrimonial disputes are resolved. Attempts were made in the present case in this direction, but unfortunately have failed.
  8. Considering the fact that the complainant is still residing in the matrimonial house, but in a separate portion thereof and the fact that she and her children are otherwise being provided with maintenance by the petitioner No. 1, I am inclined to admit the petitioners to anticipatory bail as prayed for. It has to be additionally noted that the petitioners have cooperated with the investigating officer during enquiry. Since 6.2.2004 petitioners are under interim protection.
  9. Petition stands disposed of with the direction that in the event of arrest, on petitioners furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, petitioner would be released on bail in FIR No. 39/2004 P.S. Narela.
  10. It would be a condition of the present order that the petitioners would join the investigation as and when required.
  11. Needless to state that the anticipatory bail granted would be coterminous with the decision on the application for regular bail, if any, required to be filed by the petitioners, should a challan be presented against them.

#accused #Husband gets #anticipatory #bail even though he did #NOT #settle in #ipc498a #ipc406 case !! #DelhiHC

Delhi High Court

Amardeep Malhotra vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi on 1 May, 2018


Judgment delivered on: 01.05.2018

BAIL APPLN. 1438/2017



Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sarthak Maggon, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Akshai Malik, Addl. PP for the
State with SI Manju
Mr. Anupam Dwivedi, Adv. for R-2
with R-2 in person.





  1. 1. Learned counsels for the petitioner as well as counsel for complainant inform that the settlement could not be arrived at before the mediator. The statement is taken on record.
  2. 2. Learned Addl. PP informs that the #chargesheet has been #filed and on 12.04.2018 #cognizance has already been taken. Learned Addl. PP further informs that the petitioner did join the investigation as and when he was directed to do so.
  3. 3. The petitioner #seeks #anticipatory #bail in case FIR No. 517/2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC Police Station Janak Puri, New Delhi.
  4. 4. In the event of arrest, the #petitioner shall be #released on #bail by the arresting officer/IO/SHO concerned subject to petitioner’s furnishing a bail #bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one #surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/IO/SHO concerned.
  5. 5. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.


MAY 01, 2018/’rs’