RAJAN MAHAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 18th January, 2002, passed by the court of Sh.Rajinder Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi, cancelling the bail of the petitioners in the case FIR No.780/2001, under Sections 468/471/420 Indian Penal Code P.S. Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.

(2.) Prosecution allegations in brief are that younger brother of the petitioners, Sachin Mahajan, was married with Ms.Gunjan (respondent No.2) on 19/11/1999. In September, 2000, Gunjan and her husband, Sachin Mahajan, shifted to D-8/8077, Vasant Kunj, Delhi. They could not pull on even there. On account of differences above noted case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 in which petitioners were also involved. Petitioners were arrested on 19/09/2001. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate found that the allegations of torture against the petitioners were vague and that there was no likelihood of their fleeing from justice and admitted them to bail, on each of them furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000.00 with one surety each in the like amount. However, bail application of husband of complainant, Sachin Mahajan was declined. Thereafter vide order dated 18th January, 2002, taking into consideration the report of the police that petitioners failed to join investigation as well as report lodged by the complainant at P.S. Punjabi Bagh, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate cancelled the bail of both the petitioners. This order is under challenge.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for State as well as learned counsel for complainant. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners argued that the petitioners were arrested during investigations, they were produced before the court, no police remand was sought and that they never refused to accept notice and that the same is manipulated. He argued that in any case petitioners have already participated in the investigation and that Respondent No.2 and her husband had been living separately since September, 2001, so the question of petitioners' harassing the complainant did not arise; and that false report was lodged against the petitioners with a view to get their bail cancelled. It was also argud that prior to the marriage of complainant, complainant was involved in the case under Sections 468/471/420 Indian Penal Code on the allegations that she obtained admission in the College, on the basis of fabricated certificates and that after marriage when the complainant and her husband went for honeymoon at Singapore, she was caught on the allegations of stealing some articles from a famous store and was fined US $ 2000. It is thus argued that the allegations against the petitioners of alleged threats and refusal of notices are totally false.