SAURABH SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Section 438 of Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case registered as FIR No. 511/2015 under Section 498-A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Paschim Vihar, Delhi.

(2.) The prosecution case is based on the complaint filed by Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma who was married to the petitioner on 19.04.2015 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. The complainant, in her statement stated that the dowry articles i.e. entire household goods, articles, jewelery, cash and Wagon R Car was given in her marriage to her inlaws but after marriage her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and sister-in-law started harassing and torturing her physically and mentally for bringing less dowry. It is further alleged that on 22.04.2015, i.e. just after few days, her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law came in her room and asked her to handover jewellery articles, which were received from both sides, for the purpose of keeping it in safe custody of bank locker. It is alleged that on repeated requests and demands, they did not return the same despite the complaints. It is further stated that the husband of the complainant had sold the Wagon R Car without her consent and forced her to sign on some other papers against her will. In this regard another FIR No.364/15 under Section 406/468/471 of IPC dated 30.04.2015 was also registered against the petitioner herein.

(3.) Investigation of the case was started and statement of witnesses were recorded, evidence was collected and after obtaining permission from competent authority efforts to arrest the petitioner were made but he could not be arrested. He also moved an application before the court of learned ASJ, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2016. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also preferred bail application before the High Court in which this court had passed an order to the effect that subject to petitioner joining the investigation, no coercive steps be taken against him. However, the same was later on withdrawn on behalf of the petitioner, as he was arrested in another case of cheating, lodged by the complainant herein. The petitioner remained behind bars for nine days and now he is released on regular bail in other case.