Nishala Chhabra v. Stae & ANR

> $~30&33 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 2983/2016 NISHALA CHHABRA Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Jaspreet S. Rai, Mr. Ishan Rohan, Advs.

versus STAE & ANR Respondent Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, AFP with SI Rajender Singh PS Malviya Nagar.

+ CRL.M.C. 2990/2016 NISHALA CHHABRA Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Jaspreet S. Rai, Mr. Ishan Rohan, Advs.

versus STATE & ANR.

Respondent Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP with SI Rajender Singh PS Malviya Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

ORDER

% 19.08.2016 Crl.M.A. 12805/2016 in CRL.M.C. 2983/2016 Crl.M.A. 12821/2016 in CRL.M.C. 2990/2016 Exemptions allowed subject to just exceptions. CRL.M.C 2983/2016 & CRL.M.C. 2990/2016 Rage 1 of 4 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

2^ CRL.M.C. 2983/2016 & CRL.M.C. 2990/2016 1.

The petitioner is complainant in FIR No.427/2016 under Sections 498-A/406/323/342/377/506/34 IPG registered at PS Malviya Nagar wherein subsequently Section 329 IPG was added. Gonscious of the fact that the complainant was physically abused Rohit Ghhabra was granted regular bail after he remained in custody for nearly 12 days. 2.

In Grl.M.G. 2983/2016 the petitioner seeks cancellation of regular bail of respondent No.2/ Rohit Ghhabra, her husband, granted by the learned Trial Gourt vide order dated Ib^'' June, 2016 and in Grl.M.G.2990/2016 the petitioner seeks cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 and 3 (Praveen Ghhabra and Kamlesh Ghhabra) her fatherin-law and mother-in-law respectively granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 9"^ June, 2016. 3.

In respect of Grl.M.G.2983/2016 the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the recovery of articles of istridhan of the petitioner are still to be made, custodial investigation of Rohit Ghhabra is required and the learned Additional Sessions Judge grossly erred in granting regular bail in view of the specific accusations against Rohit Ghhabra having performed unnatural sex with the petitioner.

In Grl.M.G. 2990/2016 contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that soon after the registration of FIR the petitioner received threat and thus Praveen Ghhabra and Kamlesh Ghhabra were not entitled to anticipatory bail. It is further stated that there is a real apprehension that Praveen Ghhabra and Kamlesh Ghhabra may flee from justice.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5.

The allegations of the petitioner in the above-noted FIR are that her CRLM.C 2983/2016 <& CRL.M.C. 2990/2016

parents spent ^50 lakhs at the time of marriage on 22"'^ November, 2011 wherein the functions were performed lavishly and costly jewellery and clothes were given as gifts to the in-laws. On 31'^ January, 2012 she and her husband went to Goa for her honeymoon where he was angry and annoyed with her and performed unnatural sex with her. The complainant was not th given any kind of space or freedom in the house. On 8 August, 2012 she was beaten because she refused to ask for the money from her parents as her in-laws wanted to buy a shop in the same area where they were having a show-room. When she wanted to call her parents, the mother-in-law snatched her mobile and threw water on her. The complainant was regularly abused for insufficient dowry.

After the incident dated 10^ October, 2012 her parents were called and a demand of ^20 lakhs was made. Whenever she used to go to her parental home, her husband used to demand money. On January and 2"^* February, 2013 when she refused to fulfil the demand of bringing cash she was pushed on the floor and slapped. Her husband developed an indifferent attitude on October, 2013 for no rhyme and reason. Her husband used to instigate her to commit suicide and he also indulged in "wife-swaping game". On 8^*^ June, 2014 the complainant was beaten and on 28^*" June, 2014 she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. 6.

It may be noted that Rohit Chhabra was taken into custody and only after 12 days of custody bail order was passed in his favour. Rohit Chhabra was arrested on 4^*^ June, 2016 and sent to judicial custody on 5^^ June, 2016. No Police Custody remand was sought by the investigating officer, thus the averment of the complainant that custodial interrogation of Rohit Chhabra was required for recovering the articles is totally unfounded. As regards the allegation of threat to the complainant are concerned, the learned Trial Court CRL.M. C. 2983/2016 & CRL.M. C 2990/2016

noted this contention of the petitioner and directed SHO PS Malviya Nagar to ensure safety of the complainant not only at her residence but also during her transportation from her residence at Malviya Nagar to Gurgaon. Thus adequate measures have already been taken by the learned Trial Court. As regards the contention of fleeing away from justice is concerned, a LOG was opened against Praveen Chhabra and Kamlesh Chhabra and they have been further directed to surrender their passport with the investigating officer and not leave the country without the prior permission of the concerned Court. Rohit Chhabra has also been directed not to influence the witnesses. Thus adequate conditions have been imposed by the learned Trial Court to safeguard the interest of the petitioner.

7.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to cancel the bail granted to Rohit Chhabra and anticipatory bail granted to Praveen Chhabra and Kamlesh Chhabra.

8.

Petitions are dismissed.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

AUGUST 19, 2016 'ga'

CRL.M.C 2983/2016 & CRL.M.C. 2990/2016