Rukhsana v. Nawab Ali & ANR

$~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: February 25, 2015 + RUKHSANA ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms. Prabha Sharma, Advocate versus NAWAB ALI & ANR .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Karan Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState with ASI Bani Singh Mr. Rajesh Raina, Advocate for respondent No.2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

JUDGMENT

% (ORAL) Respondent-accused was granted pre-arrest bail in FIR No.152/2013 under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC registered at P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi in view of the Memorandum of Understanding executed on 25th January, 2014. Since respondent-accused did not comply with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, petitionercomplainant had sought cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent-accused, which was declined vide impugned order of 5th August, 2014.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and the

material on record, I find that respondent-accused cannot wriggle out of the Memorandum of Understanding on the pretext that it was under the pressure of his counsel and the other counsel, who had been infact engaged by complainant.

It appears from the impugned order that respondent-accused had volunteered to give a sum of `18,000/- to petitioner-complainant, which she had refused. Respondent-accused claims that he is diabetic and has become totally blind and is thus unable to honour the Memorandum of Understanding.

During the course of hearing, it was disclosed that when the Memorandum of Understanding was executed, respondent-accused was blind even then also and was out of job due to his blindness. In such a situation, it is not acceptable that the Memorandum of Understanding was executed by respondent-accused under some duress. In view of aforesaid, order of 25th January, 2014 granting pre-arrest bail to respondent-accused on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding is hereby quashed.

Since it is undertaken on behalf of respondent-accused that a sum of `20,000/- would be deposited with the trial court within a week from today, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to permit respondent-accused to seek pre-arrest bail on merits before the Sessions Court within two weeks from today. Subject to respondent-accused depositing a sum of `20,000/- with the trial court and applying for pre-arrest bail on merits before Sessions Court within two weeks, respondent-accused be not arrested in this FIR case till his application for pre-arrest bail is decided by Sessions Court on merits. Needless to say, accused-respondent's fresh application

for pre-arrest bail be decided on merits without taking into consideration the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding or the deposit of `20,000/- with trial court.

With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE FEBRUARY 25, 2015 s