Tag Archives: bail

Bail with tough conditions, passport surrender etc for ipc 498a accused. Wife stayed just 12 days !

Bail with tough conditions, passport surrender, prior permission needed to travel outside India, rights to police to further apply for custodial interrogation etc etc for 498a accused husband. Court has taken note of the fact that the case is about alleged events in Bangalore where wife stayed just 12 days !

This wife who stayed only 12 days in place of allegation seems to have ALSO ROPED IN THE UNCLE IN LAW !!

Gujarat High Court

Praveenkumar Udaypratap Singh vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 2019

Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi

R/CR.MA/24293/2018

ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 24293 of 2018

PRAVEENKUMAR UDAYPRATAP SINGH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT


Appearance:
ADITYA A CHOKSI(7835) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK APP(2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

Date : 05/02/2019

ORAL ORDER

  1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant­accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I- 83/2018 registered with Songadh Police Station, Tapi for the offenses punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 503, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
  2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice.
  3. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition R/CR.MA/24293/2018 ORDER of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
  4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail and pointed out from the investigation papers that the amount as stated in the FIR is transferred in the bank account of the applicant. She further contended that there is specific allegation in the FIR about the torture given by the applicant at Bengalore and, therefore, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.
  5. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record including investigation papers and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
  6. This Court has considered the following aspects, (a) FIR is filed for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged incident, which has occurred at Bengalore; (b) it is not in dispute that the complainant had stayed for 12 days only at Bengalore; (c) while granting anticipatory bail to the uncle­in­law i.e. the co­accused, this Court has observed in the order dated 24.12.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.22364/2018 that “attention is drawn to the allegations in the FIR itself where it is coming out that the expenditure of marriage, which took place at Uttar Pradesh, was footed by the family of the applicant and the incident of settling the accounts thereafter“. Thus from the said observation made by this Court, the contention of learned advocate for the applicant about the transfer of the money in the account of the present applicant or parent is supported by the said observation. Therefore in view of the above facts, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required.
  7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665.
  8. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with a FIR being C.R. No. I-83/2018 registered with Songadh Police Station, Tapi on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 08.02.2019 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.; (c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; and (g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits;
  9. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.
  10. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
  11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Gautam

Advertisements

Criminal courts cannot mandate surrender of Passport as condition for Bail, Punjab & Haryana HC

 
///But the criminal courts have to take extreme care in imposing such condition. It cannot mechanically, and in every case where an accused has a passport impose a condition for its surrender. Law presumes an accused to be innocent till he is declared guilty. As a presumably innocent person he is entitled to all the fundamental rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution. At the same time, interest of the society has also to be protected. The court has to strike a balance between personal liberty of the accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, investigation, rights of the police and the interest of the society. The criminal court has to consider possibility of the accused if released on bail, fleeing justice and thereby thwarting the course of justice which affects the majesty of the law, as also the individual rights of the accused. ///
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-42638 of 2018 Date of decision: 09.10.2018 Capt. Anila Bhatia..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rubina Vermani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Dadwal, AAG, Haryana for the respondent -State. Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the complainant. *** Daya Chaudhary, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by one condition (d) of the order of bail to the effect that she shall surrender/deposit her passport, if any, with the Police/Court and shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court imposed by the Additional Sessions Judg e, Gurugram vide order dated 14.09.2018 while granting anticipatory bail i n case FIR No.614 dated 23.08.2017 registered under Sections 192, 403, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station DLF, Sector 29, Gurugram. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits t hat the petitioner is Senior Captain with Air India Airlines and is performing her duties as Pilot. She does not know in advance as to on which flight and to which country, she will have to fly. A self attested copy of flight detail of the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure P-3 wit h the petition to show that sometimes the petitioner has flown from Delhi to Dubail; Delhi to Riyadh; Mumbai to Bangkok and so on. Practicably, it is difficult for the petitioner to approach on each and every day to the trial Court to seek prior permission in a short span of time as the petitione r is given a break of only 2-3 days before flying abroad. Learned counsel further submits that the intervening period of stay in India after returning back and to fly again to a destination is very short and it is very difficult and inconvenient in compliance of the condition mentioned in the bailo rder. Learned counsel also submits that the there is no chance of absconding from the trial and she undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions imposed by the trial Court in the bail order or any condition to be imposed by this Court. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the challan has not been presented so far and trial may take long time to conclude. A prayer has been made by the petitioner for grant of permanent permission to travel abroad in discharge of her official duties by relaxing impugned condition (d) in the bail order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram on 14.09.2018 by considering the nature of official duties and profession. Learned State counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the present petition is not maintainable as in case the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner, firstly she should have approached the lower Court for modification of the condition. Learned State counsel also submits that no blanket permission can be given as the petitioner is involved in a serious offence and there is no emergency and extraordinary reasons for approaching this Court straightway without availing the appropriate remedy available to her before the lower Court. Heard arguments of learned senior counsel for the p etitioner as well as learned State counsel and have also perused impugned order dated 14.09.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, whereby, the petitioner has been released on anticipatory bail with certain conditions. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as Senior Captain in Air India Airlines and facing trial in the FIR as mentioned above, which was registered on the complaint filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram issued a direction to lodge FIR as it was found to be cognizable offence of misappropriation and cheating against the petitioner being Vice President. The anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner was allowed with certain conditions, which are as under: –

“(a) that, the applicants-accused shall join the investigation as and when required by the investigating officer and shall attend the same in accordance with the conditions of the bond;

(b) that, the applicants-accused shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected;

(c) that, the applicants-accused 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 to any police officer or tamper with evidence; and

(d) that, the applicants-accused shall surrender/deposit their passport, if any, with the police/court and shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.”

The petitioner is aggrieved by impugned condition (d), whereby, she has been directed to surrender/deposit her passport and not to leave India without the prior permission of the tri al Court. Section 437 of the Code deals with power of the Court to grant bail in non-bailable offences. Under Section 437(3) of the Code, while releasing a person accused, the Court shall impose certain conditions, which are as under: –

“(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this chapter,

(b) That such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and

(c) that such person shall not directly or indirect ly 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. and may also impose, in the interest of justice, su ch other conditions as it considers necessary.”

Even in the case of non bailable offences other than falling under sub sec.(3) of Section 437, the court or Magistrate may in its/his discretion impose conditions while granting bail to the person accused or suspected of commission of such offence.” Sub sec.(3) of Section 437 of the Code requires the Magistrate or Court to impose conditions while granting bail to the petitioner. While granting bail, the Court has to ensure that the accused or person suspected of commission of the offence is available for investigation, enquiry and trial. To ensure that, the Court may impose certain conditions on such person while releasing him/her on bail. In non bailable offences falling outside the scope of sub sec.(3) of Sec. 437 of the Code, the power to impose condition is discretionary. When a person is made to surrender his passport, it curtails his right of movement beyond the country. Article 21 of the Constitution of India says : “ No person shall be deprived of his life or person al liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The expression “personal liberty” is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of a person. The Supreme Court, in Satwant Singh v. Asst. Passport Officer [(1967) 3 SCR 525] held that “personal liberty” guaranteed under Artic le 21 Crl. M.C. No.1734 of 2011 encompassed a right of locomotion, of the right to travel abroad. Every person living in India has a fundamental right to travel, even outside India. Refusal by the Government to issue a passport without a valid law prescribing reasonable restrict ions was held to be an arbitrary exercise of the executive power infringing the equality clause of the Constitution. After the decision in Satwant Singh’s case the Parliament passed the Passport Act, 1967 regulating conditions for the grant and refusal of passport and providing grounds for impounding passport. Even after passing of the said Act, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248] the Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is not only encompassed in the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, but that right could only be denied if the procedural law which governed its excuse is fair. The preamble to the Act says that it is, “to provide for the issue of passports and travel documents, to regulate the departure from India of citizens of India and other persons and for matters incidental ancillary thereto.” Section 10(3 ) of the Act empowers the passport authority to “impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document” in the circumstances stated therein. Thus, power to impound a passport is given to the passport authority under the Act. The Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda’s case (supra) was not considering the power of criminal court to direct a person accused or suspected of commission of a non cognizable offence while he is released on bail to surrender his passport in court to ensure his presence at the investigation, enquiry or trial of the case. Instead, the Supreme Court was only considering the scope and ambit of Section 104 of the Code which said; “ Any court may, it thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before it” under the code. The power under Section 104 of the Code could be exercised only with respect to a document produced before the court and not, regarding a document not produced before it. In Wharton’s Law Lexicon, the word “impound” is given the meaning, “to place in the custody of the law”. Per Oxford Dictionary the word means “to take legal or formal possession of”. In Suresh Nanda’s case (supra), the Supreme Court considered the distinction between “seizing” and “impounding” and held that impounding is of the document which is seized. It was held that after enactment of the Act which is a special Act, a passport seized (by the CBI in that case) could be impounded only under Sec.10(3) of the Act and that so far as Sec. 104 of the Code is concerned to the extent it related to documents coming under Sec. 10 (3) of the Act, the maxim, ‘generalia specialibus non derogant’ applied. In that case the officials of th e CBI conducted a search and seized the passport of appellant. That document was retained by the CBI. Appellant moved the court of Special Judge to release the passport. The Special Judge allowed the application. That order was set aside by the High Court in revision. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court on the principle above stated. Suresh Nanda was not a case of the criminal court imposing a condition while granting bail in a non bailable offence to surrender the passport. The Supreme Court was not considering the power of criminal court in view of Sec. 10(3) of the Act, to impose a condition to surrender the passport while granting bail in a non bailable offence. Instead, that question was left o pen as is clear from the observation in paragraph 20 (o f Suresh Nanda’s case) that : “We, however, make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the case and are not deciding whether the passport can be impounded as condition for the grant of bail.” The Chhattisgarh High Court in Pushpal Swarnkar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2009(1) KLD 825 (Chh.) only made reference to the observations in paragraph 15 of the decision in Suresh Nanda regarding the power of criminal court to impound the passport under Sec. 104 of the Code which observation, I stated above is made in an entirely different context. Pushpal Swarnkar’s case did not consider, in view of the observation in paragraph 20 of Suresh Nanda quoted above whether the criminal court can, while releasing a person accused or suspected of commission of a non bailable offence to impose a condition to surrender the passport. The decision in Jose Peter v. Vijayakumar 2009(3) KLT 96 also cannot help petitioner in his contention. There, the question considered and decided was only whether a civil court, in execution of a decree could, invoking Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure impound passport of a judgment debtor on the ground that he is likely to leave the country. The question was answered in the negative. Even after enactment of the Act, in view of Article 21 of the Constitution as explained in Maneka Gandhi’s case (supra) the right to travel abroad is encompassed in the right to personal liberty which cannot be deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by the law. The right to travel abroad can be deprived by following procedure established by the law. Sec. 437(3) of the Code requires and enables the criminal court while releasing a person accused or suspected of commission of a non bailable offence by imposing a condition that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under chapter XXXIII of the Code. Even in the matter of non bailable offences not falling within sub sec.(3) of Sec. 437 of the Code, the Magistrate or court has the discretionary power to impose condition while granting bail. The person to whom bail is granted has to execute a bond in Form No.45 given in the second schedule of the Code. The relevant provision of the bond in Form No.45 states. ”…… and required to give security for any attendance before such officer or court on condition that I shall attend such officer or court on every day on which any investigation or trial is held with regard to such charge, and in case of my making default therein……” The function of the criminal court under Sec. 437 of the Code is not merely to impose a condition in the bond that the person accused or suspected of commission of a non bailable offence and to whom bail is granted attended before the officer or court. The court has to ensure that the condition is complied. The court has to enforce it. The court has to ensure that the accused who is released on bail and who has a passport does not flee from justice. The “majesty of the law is affected when a wrong doer escapes its mighty clutches-whether arising out of a voluntary or involuntary situation.” The court has to preserve the majesty of the law. That could be done, in the case of a person holding a valid passport by directing him to surrender the same in court. That the passport authority may, if proceeding in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal court in India impound or cause to be impounded or revoked such document under Sec.10( 3)(e) of the Act does not deprive the power and duty of the criminal court to enforce its order by appropriate direction. The Supreme Court in Hazarilal Gupta v.Rameswar Prasad and another [AIR 1972 SC 484] has held that sections 496, 497 and 498 of the (old) Code are not exhaustive of powers of the court in regard to terms and conditions of bail particularly when the High Court dealt with cases of that type, it was within the power of court to direct surrender of passport and that if the appellant (in that case) wanted to retain the passport the court might not have granted him bail. Viewed in that line, I am to hold that it is within the power of the criminal court while releasing a person accused or suspected of commission of a non bailable offence on bail under Sec. 437 of the Code to impose a condition that such person shall surrender his passport in court. The power granted by the Code under Sec. 437 of the Code to impose conditions including restriction on movement while granting bail in non bailable offence can be taken as procedure established by law as stated in Article 21 of the Constitution. In that view, with great respect I disagree with the view expressed in Pushpal Swarnkar’s case. But the criminal courts have to take extreme care in imposing such condition. It cannot mechanically, and in every case where an accused has a passport impose a condition for its surrender. Law presumes an accused to be innocent till he is declared guilty. As a presumably innocent person he is entitled to all the fundamental rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution. At the same time, interest of the society has also to be protected. The court has to strike a balance between personal liberty of the accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, investigation, rights of the police and the interest of the society. The criminal court has to consider possibility of the accused if released on bail, fleeing justice and thereby thwarting the course of justice which affects the majesty of the law, as also the individual rights of the accused. The court has to consider antecedents of the person accused or suspected of commission of the offence, nature of the offence he is said to have committed, necessity for his presence for investigation, duration of investigation and such other relevant factors. The court has to decide whether notwithstanding the personal liberty of the accused, interest of justice required that his right of movement should be restricted during the pendency of the case by directing him to surrender his passport. If necessary, it is open to the criminal court direct the accused to execute bond in case he has to go abroad for any purpose, for appropriate amount with sureties undertaking to appear before the Investigating Officer or court as the case may be as and when required to do so. These are though not exhaustive, some of the matters to be borne in mind by the court while deciding whether there should be a condition to surrender the passport or when there is a request to release the passport already surrendered in court. Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act specifically deals with impounding of passport whereas Section 104 Cr.P.C., allows the Court to impound the document to produce before the Court. The Passport Act overrides the provision of Cr.P.C., for the purpose of impounding passport. In the present case in hand, the order directing to surrender the passport indefinitely amounts to impounding of the passport itself. In the present case, while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, a condition has been imposed to surrender his passport before the trial Court. The petitioner is working a Pilot in Air India Airlines and her nature of duties are such that she is to fly aeroplane and as per duty roster assigned to her, she is to fly abroad on certain occasions where she is not aware about the next program as only a short notice is there during which it is very difficult for the petitioner to take prior permission and to have the the passport in case, the same is deposited. No doubt, as per Section 102(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, the power of police officer is there to seize certa in property. The police may have the power to seize a passport under Section 10 2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code but it does not have the power to impound the same. Impounding of a passport can only be done by the passport authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967. There is a difference between seizing of a document and impounding a document. A seizure is made at a particular moment when a person or authority takes into his possession some property which was earlier not in his/her possession. Thus, seizure is done at a particular moment of time. However, if after seizing of a property or document, the said property or document is retained for some period of time, then such retention amounts to impounding of the property or document. In the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanath a Aiyar (2 nd Edition), the word “impound” has been defined to mean “to take possession of a document or thing for being held in custody in accordance with law”. Thus, the word “impounding” really means retention of possession of a good or a document which has been seized. Hence, while the police may have power to seize a passport under Section 102 Criminal Procedure Code if it is permissible within the authority given under Section 102 of Criminal Proce dure Code, it does not have power to retain or impound the same, because that can only be done by the passport authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. Hence, if the police seizes a passport (which it has power to do under Section 102 Criminal Procedure Code), thereafter the police must send it along with a letter to the passport authority clearly stating that the seized passport deserves to be impounded for one of the reasons mentioned in Section 10(3) of the Act. It is thereafter the passport authority to decide whether to impound the passport or not. Since impounding of a passport has civil consequences, the passport authority must give an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned before impounding his passport. It is well settled that (without?) any opportunity of hearing to a party vide State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC 1269, The trial Court cannot impound a passport. No doubt, Section 104 Criminal Procedure Code states that the Court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before it but this provision will only enable the Court to impound any document or thing other than a passport as impounding a “passport” is provided for in Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. It is a settled law that the special law prevails over the general law. The Passports Act is a special law while the Criminal Procedure Code is a general law. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Criminal Procedure Code though it can impound any other document or thing. For the reasons recorded here-in-above and law discussed, the present petition is allowed and impugned condition (d) of order dated 14.09.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram is set aside. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move a specific application for release of his passport within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, such an application is moved, the trial Court is directed to consider the application and return the passport forthwith without any delay. It is also directed that the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking in writing before the trial Court in case, long stay is there other than the normal course of her duties prior permission would be taken from the trial Court. 09.10.2018 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

Criminal courts cannot mandate surrender of Passport as condition for Bail, Punjab & Haryana HC

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’

#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

My husband #Raped me ! Wife get’s #husband #arrested and thrown in #Jail: Uttr HC #Bail

#Joke of the Day – it is on us 😦 !
* Lots of really well meaning friends & mentors have been advising me (off late) that I should take things easy * They suggest that I should post jokes & stuff like that, should discuss movies etc. and NOT keep talking of Dowry, DV, sec 125 all the time. * As we all know, positive vibes are important
* I wholeheartedly thank them for their warmth and care ! I really appreciate all of you for taking time and spending money to advise me.. THANKS a million bhayOn & BehnOn
* upto this part is real serious, so **thank you seriously**

* But ladies and gentlemen there is something called fate, something called “Karma” and that will always follow me. *Today I decided that I WILL post something #funny on FB and finally this is what I get
* A wife files a #RAPE case on HER OWN husband and the HUSBAND IS ARRESTED and is in Jail !! Yes #Wife, Yes #rape on her own #husband and husband is in Jail !! Initially she files a Sections #498A/323/313/494/504 cocktail on that poor fella but he gets bail !! So she ADDS #Sec376ipc #RAPE on him to have him arrested !! The fella has to run up to #Uttaranchal #HIGHCOURT to get his bail after approx one and a half months of jail !!

—— Please join me in thanking our system for this ——
—– Willimprove my sense of humour in comming days !! —–

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Dated: Nainital: February 06, 2017
First Bail Application No.161 of 2017
Order on the bail application of accused
Criminal Side
 
Sunil Nodiyal ……Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand …….Respondent
________________________________________________
 
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
 
Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. K.S. Rautela, Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, Brief Holder for the State and Mr. B.S. Bhandari, Advocate for the complainant.
 
This is the first bail application. The applicant is in jail having been implicated in Case Crime No. 237 of 2016, which has been registered under Sections 420/120B/498A/323/313/494/504/376 of IPC, at Police Station Nehru Colony, District Dehradun.
 
Earlier an FIR under Sections 498A/323/313/494/504 of IPC was lodged against the applicant at Police Station Nehru Colony, District Dehradun wherein the present applicant was granted limited protection by this Court in a writ petition. Thereafter another Section 376 of IPC has been added.
 
The claim of the applicant is that the complainant has married with the applicant, therefore the offence under Section 376 of IPC is not made out against the applicant and purely in order to arrest the applicant, Section 376 of IPC has been added. The applicant is in jail since 24.12.2016.
 
Considering the overall evidence which is presently available before this Court, prima facie, the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail. The bail application is accordingly allowed.
 
Let the applicant be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid crime on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the equal amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned/court concerned.
 
It is made clear that any observations made by this Court are only for the purposes of deciding the bail application and shall not be taken into consideration at all in any other proceedings.
 
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Vacation Judge
 
06.02.2017
 
Avneet/