Dr Suresh Singh v. State
6# $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + DR SURESH SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by:
Mr. Pradeep Teotia and Ms.
Anupriya Yadav, Advocates.
versus STATE ..... Respondent Represented by:
Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State with SI Narender, PS Prashant Vihar.
Mr. Naveen Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R
% 20.04.2017 1.
By the present petition the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.1595/2015 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Prashant Vihar. The allegations of the complainant in the above noted FIR are inter alia of cruelty and demand of dowry against the petitioner who is the husband of the complainant and her elder brother-in-law and sister-inlaw. It is further alleged that the petitioner was having an extra marital affair with another lady.
2.
To substantiate her claim giving cash as dowry the complainant furnished details showing that ₹31.22 lakhs had been allegedly paid to the petitioner by the complainant, her father and mother. During the course of investigation ₹14.12 lakhs were found to be transferred from her account
and out of the said amount of ₹14.12 lakhs, ₹9.32 lakhs were transferred from the account of the complainant through cheque to the petitioner and an amount of ₹2 lakhs was given to one Sunder and ₹2.80 lakhs was given to one Surender Singh. Further an amount of ₹7.60 lakhs was given by the father of the complainant to the petitioner.
3.
Since the petitioner also claimed that he had transferred various amounts to the account of the complainant and her family members and properties as well, further status report was called for. As per the status report it is revealed that from the account of the petitioner ₹3.10 lakhs, ₹2.50 lakhs and ₹50,000/- were transferred to the account of father of the complainant. Further ₹3 lakhs and ₹4 lakhs were transferred from the account of the petitioner to the account of the mother of the complainant and an amount of ₹1 lakh was transferred from the account of the petitioner to that of the complainant.
4.
Further documents were also shown regarding gifting of the property bearing No.179, Block and Pocket-A-6, admeasuring 60 sq. meters Sector28 Rohini by the petitioner to the complainant which fact was also duly verified from the office of the Registrar.
5.
Considering the fact that there have been many transactions both from the complainant's family to the petitioner and from the petitioner's account to that of the complainant and her family members and also considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6.
It is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/-
with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/SHO concerned, further subject to the condition that he will join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and will not leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned. In case of change of address, the same will be intimated by the petitioner to the concerned Court by way of an affidavit. 7.
Bail application is disposed of.
8.
Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
APRIL 20, 2017 'vn'