Anoop Chaudhary v. The State
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2255/2018 ANOOP CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner Represented by:
Mr.Man Mohan Yadav, Advocate versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Represented by:
Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the State with SI Jagjeewan, PS Badar Pur Ms.Sony Das and Mr.R.M.Bhargav, Advocate for the complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R
% 09.10.2018 1.
A status report has been handed over which is taken on record. 2.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.359/2018 under Sections 498A/323/376-D/377/509 registered at PS Badar Pur.
3.
The abovenoted FIR was registered on the complaint of the wife of the petitioner who stated that she was married to the petitioner on 15th November, 2017 at Arya Samaj Mandir. However after the marriage the petitioner started torturing her for dowry from day one and used to beat her and keep her hungry. She made a complaint to the police in February, 2018 whereafter the petitioner took her along with him. It is alleged that the BAIL APPLN. 2255/2018
petitioner used to beat the complainant after drinking, used to demand money and on her refusal, he used to borrow the money from his friends. It is alleged that on 28th July, 2018, the petitioner came with his friends, drank at home and even told her that to discharge the debt towards his friends she should sleep with them. On her refusal, the friends of her husband went away however on the next date again the complainant was beaten mercilessly and unnatural sex was performed with her. It is alleged that the petitioner took a sum of ₹90,000/- from her bag on 26th August, 2018 and when she objected to the same she was beaten. Thereafter the complainant went to her parents' home. When she returned back, she found that her husband was not at home.
4.
Learned APP for the State has handed over a photocopy of the earlier complaint made by the complainant to the ACP, Crime Women Cell, Sri Niwas Puri on 7th February, 2018. In the said complaint, the grievance of the complainant is that the petitioner used to drink and demand money. Admittedly in the said case the petitioner was called for counselling and thereafter the parties started living together. 5.
Considering the allegations of the complainant that the petitioner used to drink and thereafter assault and that before filing of the above noted FIR, an earlier complaint was made by the complainant in February, 2018 about his behaviour after drinking, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
6.
Petition is dismissed.
7.
Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
OCTOBER 09, 2018/mamta BAIL APPLN. 2255/2018