Suresh Jain v. State Of NCT Of Delhi
IH $~5 to 7 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 746/2017 SURESH JAIN Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Gaurav Chopra and Mr.Arindam Ghose, Advocates versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent Represented by: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, AFP for the State with SI Suman, PS Prashant Vihar + BAIL APPLN. 747/2017 SMT NEELU JAIN Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Gaurav Chopra and Mr.Arindam Ghose, Advocates versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent Represented by: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the State with SI Suman, PS Prashant Vihar + BAIL APPLN. 749/2017 y.. T A T T A TKT Petitioner KUNAL JAIN ^ ^ ^ Represented by: Mr.Gaurav Chopra and Mr.Arindam Ghose, Advocates versus BAIL APPLN. 746/2017, 74 7/2017 & 749/2017 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.
STATE OF NOT OF DELHI Respondent Represented by: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the State with SI Suman, PS Prashant Vihar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
o/o 30.08.2018 Cri.M.A.No. 15044/2017 in Bail App.No.746/2017 Crl.M.A.No. 15168/2017 in Bail App.No.747/2017 Ct1.M.A.No.15165/2017 in Bail Apd.No.749/2017 1.
Petitioners are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband respectively of the complainant in case FIR No. 190/2017 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG and Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations of the complainant against the petitioners are of continuous harassment for demand of dowry as well as by the petitioners boosting of their high standards and affluent living style. 2.
Marriage between the parties was performed on 15"" October, 2010 and thereafter the daughter was born on 15^'' July, 2011. The complaint for ^ the first time was lodged by the complainant as noted above in January, 2017 i.e. almost more than 6 years of the marriage. Though the charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been filed against petitioners Neelu Jain and Kunal Jain as stated by the Investigating Officer however no approval of arrest of the two petitioners has been taken from the Competent Authority till date.
BAIL APPLN. 746/2017, 747/2017 & 749/2017
3.
The allegations against Suresh Jain, the father-in-law besides the one against Neelu Jain and Kunal Jain are that one day when the complainant was inside her room and looking toward her injuries, Suresh Jain entered the room, misbehaved with her and inserted his finger in her vagina. 4.
Learned APP for the State submits that after investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
5.
Considering the nature of allegations and also the fact that the ^ complainant left the matrimonial home on 28"" October, 2016, the complaint was filed with the said allegations only in January, 2017, this Court deems it Tfit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. It is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ?25,000/- each with one surety bond each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/SLIO concerned/concerned Court further subject to the condition that the petitioners will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court concerned and in case of change of residential address, the same will be intimated to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit.
V- '■ 6.
Petitions are disposed of.
Crl.M.A.Nos.15042-43/2017 in Bail Ar)P.No.746/2Q17 Crl.M.A.Nos. 15166-67/2017 in Bail Ann.No.747/2017 Crl.M.A.Nos.15163-64/2017 in Bail App.No.749/2017 Dismissed as infmctuous.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
AUGUST 30, 2018/m««ito BAIL APPLN. 746/2017, 747/2017 & 749/2017