Sunil Sehgal v. State

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1149/2015 SUNIL SEHGAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Kartickay Mathur, Advocate along with petitioner in person

Versus

STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr Hirein Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State along with W/ASI Vidya, Police Station Hari Nagar.

Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate for the complainant along with complainant in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 29.04.2016 1.

Vide this application u/s 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.584/14 u/s 498A/406/34 IPC registered with Police Station Hari Nagar, New Delhi.

2.

FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of a complaint made by Smt. Ruchi wherein she alleged that she got married with the petitioner on 1st March, 2008. An alto car, a gold set weighing 25 tolas was given besides the other gold jewellery and household articles. However, her husband and in-laws were not satisfied and they used to torture, harass and beat her for bringing insufficient dowry. She was also pressurized to get the plot transferred in the name of the petitioner and Honda City Car was also demanded. Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the marriage took place in the year 2008, FIR was registered in the year 2014. The petitioner is ready and willing to return the articles as per the admitted

list, however, the complainant is not ready to receive the same. 3.

On the other hand, learned APP for the State duly assisted by the complainant has submitted that all the jewellery articles are lying with the petitioner who has not returned the same. In this regard, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the jewellery was kept by the complainant in the locker of her mother and petitioner is not having the same and as such, is not in a position to return the same. 4.

The question whether the jewellery is lying with the petitioner or with the complainant‟s mother is required to be seen during the trial of the case. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has joined investigation. Matter was also sent to the Mediation Centre for exploring the possibility of settlement which, however, could not arrive at. 5.

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, it is ordered that in the event of his arrest:- (v) Petitioner be admitted to bail on his executing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./SHO. (vi) He shall join the investigation as and when called for by the I.O. (vii) He shall furnish his address as well as his contact number to the Investigating Officer.

(viii) He shall not threaten or coerce complainant or any prosecution witness.

The application is accordingly disposed of.

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the petitioner. SUNITA GUPTA, J APRIL 29, 2016/rs