CHANDER PRAKASH KAYAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant seeking anticipatory, bail in case FIR No. 338/2014 u/s 498A/406/34 IPC registered with Police Station Ghazipur. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the applicant and the complainant was solemnized on 24th June, 2012 without any demand of dowry. On the very first night of the marriage, the complainant had expressed that she was not willing for the marriage and sought some time to handle the situation and requested the applicant that she is not ready to consummate the marriage at that time, to which the applicant agreed. After some time of the marriage, the complainant insisted living in separate accommodation. As such, the applicant took a house on rent in house No. 1044, Ground Floor, Street No. 32. Madangir and at that time the complainant had given a writing voluntarily stating therein that she was taking all her jewellery and kitchen articles along with her. Even after living separately, the complainant left the home on 10th June. 2013 and gave a complaint at Delhi Women Commission on 14th June, 2013 and thereafter another complaint in Crime against Women Cell in December, 2013. Most of the jewellery and other articles were taken by the complainant in the rented accommodation and after registration of FIR, some of the articles including jewellery items even gifted to the family members of the applicant have been returned to her. The applicant is still ready and willing to keep the complainant with him and with that end in view, he had also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which is pending before the Family Court. The petitioner has joined investigation and is ready and willing to further join the same. As such, he deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.

(2.) The application is opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State duly assisted by the counsel for the complainant who submitted that there are allegations of harassment to the complainant on account of dowry demand. While shifting to the rented accommodation, the complainant was compelled to give in writing that she was taking jewellery and kitchen articles with her. However, due to harassment by the applicant, she was made to leave the rented accommodation and at that time, nothing was taken by her. Stridhan articles are still lying with the applicant. Several litigations are pending between the parties. As such, custodial interrogation is required and the applicant does not deserve to be released on anticipatory bail.

(3.) Efforts made for settlement between the parties either way could not succeed even before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. As per the recovery memo dated 15th July, 2014, various articles including i10 car, LCD TV, fridge, AC, some jewellery articles were returned to the complainant. Question whether other stridhan articles are still lying in the possession of the applicant is a matter of trial. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has joined investigation. Under the circumstances, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that in the event of his arrest:--