Tag Archives: Anticipatory bail

10 CRORES for AB ! Not judicial discretion ! Onerous condition of 10 crores set aside by Supreme court !!

Image result for supreme court of india images

Supreme Court of India

Avinash Arora And Ors. vs State Of U.T. Chandigarh And Anr. on 13 April, 2000

Equivalent citations: 2000 CriLJ 4674, JT 2000 (7) SC 501

Bench: G Pattanaik, U Banerjee

JUDGMENT

  1. Leave granted.
  2. The appellants have been alleged to have committed offence under Sections 420, 406, 468, 467, 471 and 120B, I.P.C. On an application being filed under Section 438 of the CrPC, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted anticipatory bail, subject to deposit Rs. 10 crores. The appellants did avail of the order by issuing a cheque of Rs. 10 crores from the IFCI ‘No Lien Account’. The earlier order was, however, modified requiring the appellants to deposit Rs. 10 crores from his own account. It is this order which is now being assailed before us. Mr. Jain, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contends that requiring to deposit Rs. 10 crores itself is an unjust order and cannot be held to be proper exercise of discretion by the Court for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438. Ms. Jaiswal, the learned Counsel for the State as well as the learned Counsel appearing for IFCI contend that the Court ought not to have exercised his discretion under Section 438, in view of the nature of accusation. But the Court having done so by requiring the appellants to deposit Rs. 10 crores, the same need not be interfered with. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Court committed error in passing the conditional order of depositing Rs. 10 crores for grant of anticipatory bail as in our view, this cannot be held to be an exercise of judicial discretion. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned direction and remit the matter to the High Court for re-disposal of the petition filed under Section 438 of the CrPC, in accordance with law.
  3. The appeals are disposed of.

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.

Husband gets #Anticipatory #Bail #AB in #498a #ipc406 #ipc506 case though #wife claims all #Jewels Not #Returned. #DelhiHC

Husband gets #Anticipatory #Bail #AB in #498a #ipc406 #ipc506 though #wife claims all #Jewels Not #Returned. #DelhiHC

//however, a plea was raised that the entire jewellery has not been received, to which the petitioner contends that entire jewellery has been returned to the respondent.

5. Perusal of the record shows that petitioner has made out a case for anticipatory bail. No case is made out for the custodial interrogation of the petitioner.///

**

Delhi High Court

Lalit Singh Negi vs State on 17 April, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 17.04.2018

BAIL APPLN. 2478/2016

LALIT SINGH NEGI ….. Petitioner
versus

STATE ….. Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr Gurmehar Singh Sistani and Mr Samit Khosla
with petitioner in person.
For the Respondent : Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State.
SI Satish Kumar, PS Ambedkar Nagar.
Mr Vinod Dubey, Advocate for complainant.

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

17.04.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

  1. 1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.445/2016 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC, Police Station Ambedkar Nagar.
  2. 2. Parties were referred to Mediation; however, no settlement could be arrived at. Petitioner was granted interim protection on 02.12.2016 subject to joining investigation.
  3. 3. As per the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner did join investigation, as and when he was called upon to do so.
  4. 4. On 06.09.2017, this Court had recorded the contention of the complainant that she has received part of jewellery from the petitioner in the Police Station on 15.07.2017 and also a demand draft of Rs.70,000/-, however, a plea was raised that the entire jewellery has not been received, to which the petitioner contends that entire jewellery has been returned to the respondent.
  5. 5. Perusal of the record shows that petitioner has made out a case for anticipatory bail. No case is made out for the custodial interrogation of the petitioner. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO, on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO.
  6. 6. The petitioner shall not do anything, which shall either prejudice the investigation or any of the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall join investigation, as and when so required by the Investigating Officer.
  7. 7. The Petition is accordingly disposed of.
  8. 8. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 17, 2018/’Sn’

#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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 01.05.2018

BAIL APPLN. 1438/2017

AMARDEEP MALHOTRA ….. Petitioner
versus

STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI ….. Respondent

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.

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

01.05.2018

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

  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.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

MAY 01, 2018/’rs’

#NRI #husband gets #Anticipatory #bail . Wife claims dowry & torture, husband shows proof of PAYING her mother thru bank!!

#NRI #husband gets #Anticipatory #bail . Wife claims dowry & torture, husband shows proof of PAYING her mother Rs. 100000 thru bank!!

Wife claims husband earns 2 crores in USA, but demanded 10 lakhs as dowry from her mother 😦 😦 !!!

The case shows that

] ///Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed
] documents of ICICI Bank in order to demonstrate that far from
] demanding dowry from Jaya Sharma, he had, in fact, transferred about
] Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Alka Sharma, the mother of the victim,
] during the period between 16-04-2015 and 04-07-2014. The petitioner
] has also filed numerous photographs of the estranged couple taken on
] various occasions in U.S., portraying perfect picture of marital
] bliss and harmony. Copy of order dated 06-10-2015 showing that Sumit
] had obtained â??Limited Divorceâ? from a Circuit Court in Montgomery
] County, Maryland, U.S.A. has also been filed. Copy of another order
] dated 07-06-2015, dismissing a petition for want of evidence, filed
] by victim Jaya Sharma before the same Court for protection, has also
] been filed. Documents and copies of E-mail have also been filed for
] showing that the petitioner took keen interest in victim Jaya’s
] career as a dentist in U.S. and arranged for her studies and her
] attendance in various dental clinics. It has also been contended that
] as per application submitted by the victim the petitioner earns
] approximately Rs.2,00,00,000/- in U.S. In such a situation, the
] allegation that he demanded Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry from the mother
] of the victim, who is a widow, is ridiculous.////
]

 

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sumit Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2016

MCRC-5117-2016

(SUMIT KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

28-04-2016

Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate with Shri Jasmeet Singh Hora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Pradeep Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Sumit Kumar in Crime No.107/2015 registered by Mahila Police Station, District-Bhopal, under sections 498- A and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

As per prosecution case, petitioner Sumit Kumar, who is based in Maryland United States of America, married victim Jaya Sharma in the Court on 05-07-2014 by Hindu rites on 08-03-2014, at Bhopal. Victim’s mother Alka Sharma had given her house-hold items worth Rs.10,00,000/- in the marriage. On 09-03-2014, the parents of Sumit Kumar asked him not to take the victim to her matrimonial home at Gorakhpur until and unless her mother paid Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry. The mother of the victim was constrained to give Rs.4,00,000/- more in cash on 10-03-2014. Thereafter, the victim was taken to Gorakhpur where the parents of the petitioner continued to harass and taunt her for dowry. Thereafter, the victim went to America with the petitioner on 13-03-2014. Even in America, petitioner Sumit Kumar kept harassing and beating her for dowry. On 01-05-2015, they returned to Gorakhpur. On 05-05-2015, she was sent to Bhopal. On 08-05-2015, petitioner Sumit Kumar came to Bhopal and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- for getting some work done in their house at Bangalore. Even on that occasion, victim’s mother Alka Sharma paid Rs.4,00,000/- to petitioner Sumit Kumar. Thereafter, petitioner’s parents Narsingh and Pushpa told the victim on telephone that unless she brought Rs.10,00,000/-, she would not be admitted in the matrimonial home. After that, she stayed with petitioner’s parents at Gorakhpur between 23-05-2015 and 26-05-2015. When they returned to America, petitioner took her to a doctor for the purpose of getting her declared mentally ill. The Doctor sent her to a shelter house home, wherefrom she returned to India with the help of a Social Organisation and Indian Embassy in US.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed documents of ICICI Bank in order to demonstrate that far from demanding dowry from Jaya Sharma, he had, in fact, transferred about Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Alka Sharma, the mother of the victim, during the period between 16-04-2015 and 04-07-2014. The petitioner has also filed numerous photographs of the estranged couple taken on various occasions in U.S., portraying perfect picture of marital bliss and harmony. Copy of order dated 06-10-2015 showing that Sumit had obtained â??Limited Divorceâ? from a Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland, U.S.A. has also been filed. Copy of another order dated 07-06-2015, dismissing a petition for want of evidence, filed by victim Jaya Sharma before the same Court for protection, has also been filed. Documents and copies of E-mail have also been filed for showing that the petitioner took keen interest in victim Jaya’s career as a dentist in U.S. and arranged for her studies and her attendance in various dental clinics. It has also been contended that as per application submitted by the victim the petitioner earns approximately Rs.2,00,00,000/- in U.S. In such a situation, the allegation that he demanded Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry from the mother of the victim, who is a widow, is ridiculous.

In aforesaid circumstances, relying upon the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail.

It may be noted here that Narsingh and Pushpa, parents of the petitioner, have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by order dated 23-12-2015 passed in M.Cr.C.No.21163/2015 by this Court.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand, has opposed the application on the ground that there are specific allegations of harassment for dowry and cruelty against the petitioner. This is a case where an Indian bride was taken to U.S. and was subjected to cruelty for dowry. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the documents filed by the petitioner and the fact that custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary, as also the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) with regard to offences under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Consequently, the application is accordingly allowed. Now the question arises as to what conditions may be imposed in order to ensure that the petitioner, who is admittedly based in U.S., does not flee from justice. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has a job in U.S. and if his passport is directed to be deposited, he would lose his job which would virtually shatter his life. Relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Nanda vs. C.B.I., 2008 Cri.L.J. 1599 and by High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Pushpal Swarnkar vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Revision No.715/2008, it has been held that the Court has no jurisdiction to impound the passport and it can only be done by the Passport Authority under section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967. It has further been prayed that short of depositing the passport, the Court may impose any condition for ensuring co-operation of the petitioner during investigation and trial. Keeping in view the aforesaid contentions, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Certified copy as per rules.

(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE

Wife claims husband earns 2 crores in USA, but demanded 10 lakhs as dowry from her mother 😦 😦 !!!

 

///Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed documents of ICICI Bank in order to demonstrate that far from demanding dowry from Jaya Sharma, he had, in fact, transferred about Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Alka Sharma, the mother of the victim, during the period between 16-04-2015 and 04-07-2014. The petitioner has also filed numerous photographs of the estranged couple taken on various occasions in U.S., portraying perfect picture of marital bliss and harmony. Copy of order dated 06-10-2015 showing that Sumit had obtained â??Limited Divorceâ? from a Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland, U.S.A. has also been filed. Copy of another order dated 07-06-2015, dismissing a petition for want of evidence, filed by victim Jaya Sharma before the same Court for protection, has also been filed. Documents and copies of E-mail have also been filed for showing that the petitioner took keen interest in victim Jaya’s career as a dentist in U.S. and arranged for her studies and her attendance in various dental clinics. It has also been contended that as per application submitted by the victim the petitioner earns approximately Rs.2,00,00,000/- in U.S. In such a situation, the allegation that he demanded Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry from the mother of the victim, who is a widow, is ridiculous.////

 

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sumit Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2016

MCRC-5117-2016

(SUMIT KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

 

28-04-2016

Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate with Shri Jasmeet Singh Hora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Pradeep Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Sumit Kumar in Crime No.107/2015 registered by Mahila Police Station, District-Bhopal, under sections 498- A and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

As per prosecution case, petitioner Sumit Kumar, who is based in Maryland United States of America, married victim Jaya Sharma in the Court on 05-07-2014 by Hindu rites on 08-03-2014, at Bhopal. Victim’s mother Alka Sharma had given her house-hold items worth Rs.10,00,000/- in the marriage. On 09-03-2014, the parents of Sumit Kumar asked him not to take the victim to her matrimonial home at Gorakhpur until and unless her mother paid Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry. The mother of the victim was constrained to give Rs.4,00,000/- more in cash on 10-03-2014. Thereafter, the victim was taken to Gorakhpur where the parents of the petitioner continued to harass and taunt her for dowry. Thereafter, the victim went to America with the petitioner on 13-03-2014. Even in America, petitioner Sumit Kumar kept harassing and beating her for dowry. On 01-05-2015, they returned to Gorakhpur. On 05-05-2015, she was sent to Bhopal. On 08-05-2015, petitioner Sumit Kumar came to Bhopal and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- for getting some work done in their house at Bangalore. Even on that occasion, victim’s mother Alka Sharma paid Rs.4,00,000/- to petitioner Sumit Kumar. Thereafter, petitioner’s parents Narsingh and Pushpa told the victim on telephone that unless she brought Rs.10,00,000/-, she would not be admitted in the matrimonial home. After that, she stayed with petitioner’s parents at Gorakhpur between 23-05-2015 and 26-05-2015. When they returned to America, petitioner took her to a doctor for the purpose of getting her declared mentally ill. The Doctor sent her to a shelter house home, wherefrom she returned to India with the help of a Social Organisation and Indian Embassy in US.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed documents of ICICI Bank in order to demonstrate that far from demanding dowry from Jaya Sharma, he had, in fact, transferred about Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Alka Sharma, the mother of the victim, during the period between 16-04-2015 and 04-07-2014. The petitioner has also filed numerous photographs of the estranged couple taken on various occasions in U.S., portraying perfect picture of marital bliss and harmony. Copy of order dated 06-10-2015 showing that Sumit had obtained â??Limited Divorceâ? from a Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland, U.S.A. has also been filed. Copy of another order dated 07-06-2015, dismissing a petition for want of evidence, filed by victim Jaya Sharma before the same Court for protection, has also been filed. Documents and copies of E-mail have also been filed for showing that the petitioner took keen interest in victim Jaya’s career as a dentist in U.S. and arranged for her studies and her attendance in various dental clinics. It has also been contended that as per application submitted by the victim the petitioner earns approximately Rs.2,00,00,000/- in U.S. In such a situation, the allegation that he demanded Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry from the mother of the victim, who is a widow, is ridiculous.

In aforesaid circumstances, relying upon the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail.

It may be noted here that Narsingh and Pushpa, parents of the petitioner, have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by order dated 23-12-2015 passed in M.Cr.C.No.21163/2015 by this Court.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand, has opposed the application on the ground that there are specific allegations of harassment for dowry and cruelty against the petitioner. This is a case where an Indian bride was taken to U.S. and was subjected to cruelty for dowry. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the documents filed by the petitioner and the fact that custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary, as also the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) with regard to offences under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Consequently, the application is accordingly allowed. Now the question arises as to what conditions may be imposed in order to ensure that the petitioner, who is admittedly based in U.S., does not flee from justice. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has a job in U.S. and if his passport is directed to be deposited, he would lose his job which would virtually shatter his life. Relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Nanda vs. C.B.I., 2008 Cri.L.J. 1599 and by High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Pushpal Swarnkar vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Revision No.715/2008, it has been held that the Court has no jurisdiction to impound the passport and it can only be done by the Passport Authority under section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967. It has further been prayed that short of depositing the passport, the Court may impose any condition for ensuring co-operation of the petitioner during investigation and trial. Keeping in view the aforesaid contentions, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Certified copy as per rules.

(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE