BILAL ANSARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application under Sec. 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter 'BNSS') has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR bearing No. 218/2024 registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Delhi for offence punishable under Ss. 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter 'IPC') and Sec. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the marriage between the complainant and the accused was solemnized on 25/2/2022, as per Muslim customs, at the Mohammadi Masjid Kardampuri, Delhi, with the dower fixed at Rs.20,000..00 The wedding reception was held on 5/3/2022 at Green Garden Farm House, Village Sabhapur, following which the complainant had retired to her in-laws' residence at New Seelampur, Delhi. At the time of the complainant's departure, her parents and relatives had given dowry items - including a Creta car, Bullet motorcycle, gold and silver jewellery, furniture, appliances, utensils, and a sum of Rs.5,25,000.00 in cash - as per the demands made by her in-laws. Additionally, the complainant's family had performed all pre-marital ceremonies, such as engagement, Roka, Haldi, and the Nikah, as per the instructions of the in-laws, incurring significant expenses. After the marriage, the complainant had noticed a significant change in the behaviour of her in-laws. They had allegedly started taunting her over various issues, speaking harshly, and verbally abusing her family. On 25/3/2022, when the complainant had questioned her husband about this behavior, he had abused her and, along with his parents and siblings, accused her father of providing insufficient dowry. They had demanded a Fortuner car instead of the Creta and had insulted her for being outspoken. This had escalated to physical violence, with her husband slapping her, followed by beatings from the other in-laws. Over the subsequent days, her in-laws' harassment intensified. Despite fulfilling her household responsibilities, the complainant had been subjected to nightly demands to cook at odd hours. On 25/4/2022, her in-laws had demanded an additional Rs.25,00,000.00 from her father, threatening to divorce her if she failed to comply. When the complainant's parents had arranged Rs.5,00,000.00 and handed it over to her father-in-law, the in-laws had assured them they would not harass her further. However, this promise had only lasted a few days before the abuse resumed. On the night of 20/6/2022, the in-laws had demanded the remaining Rs.20,00,000.00 and, upon refusal, had physically assaulted the complainant. Her father-in-law had pushed her down the stairs, causing her significant injuries. Despite her injuries, her in-laws had falsely claimed to neighbors that the fall had been caused by a rat. By 1/8/2022, the complainant was allegedly moved out of her in-laws' house and left at her parents' residence. Her in-laws had retained all her belongings, including gold and silver jewelry, clothing, and essential documents such as her PAN card, Aadhaar card, and educational certificates. Despite multiple requests, these items had not been returned. While living with her parents, the complainant had given birth to a son on 22/2/2023 through a caesarean operation at K.G. Medical Center, Delhi. All the expenses had been borne by her parents. Despite being informed about the birth, her husband and in-laws had neither visited nor inquired about her or the child's well-being. Since 1/8/2022, the complainant had been living as a financial burden on her parents, with no support from her husband or in-laws. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR was registered.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant argues that the allegations levelled in the present FIR and the complaint are not specific and the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is stated that there are no specific allegations as to whom the dowry articles were entrusted and therefore, the present applicant solely cannot be held responsible for non-return of the dowry articles. It is also stated that the applicant/accused had to get remarried since his mother was not keeping well, and she wanted him to settle down during her lifetime. The learned counsel states that the applicant does not dispute that he had sold the car which was given as dowry article at the time of his marriage in the present case for an amount of about Rs.6.00 lakhs, though the original value of the vehicle in question was about Rs.13.00 lakhs. It is stated that the applicant is willing to give Rs.6.00lakhs towards the said car to the complainant. It is contended that the applicant had joined the investigation, and at no point of time has refused to return the dowry articles to the complainant. It is stated by the learned counsel that towards full and final settlement of this case, the applicant is willing to pay Rs.6.00 lakhs for lifelong maintenance for his wife, and the child who is more than 1 1/2 years old. The learned counsel for the applicant also states that the present case is of normal wear and tear of the marriage and not a case where the complainant has been found in hospital or has been subjected to utmost cruelty leaving the senior officers to issue orders for arrest of the present accused/applicant. Thus, it is prayed that the present applicant be granted anticipatory bail.