HIMANSHU SURI Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this present application filed under section 438 of Cr. P.C., 1973 the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0536/2016 under Section 498-A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Model Town, Delhi.

(2.) The present FIR has been registered at the instance of the complainant, who has stated before the police that after marrying with Shri Himashu Suri, her husband (petitioner herein) started beating her and making allegations on her character. After two days of her marriage her jewellery articles were taken away by her in-laws and they used to make dowry demands. She had specifically stated that on 29th December 2015, her husband asked her to bring Rs. 5 lakhs from her parents as he wanted to expand his business. When she denied asking for money from her parents, her husband beat her up, upon which she seeked help from the neighbours. She called her parents who were also beaten up by her husband and father-in-law. She further stated in her complaint that on 30.12.2015 she went to Vijay Nagar Police Station for filing a complaint against her in-laws but they refused to take the complaint, and Ghaziabad Women Cell had also not taken any action against her in-laws. After entering into a settlement with her husband she started living with her husband but after 2-3 days, on instance of her sister-in-law her husband abused her and gave beatings to her at the time of marriage of her sister-in-law. When she asked for handing her jewellery, her husband locked her in a room. She was also thrown out from her matrimonial home and her clothes, stridhan, jewellery items, dowry articles, and documents in respect of her identity were not given to her.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after marriage with the complainant on 29.01.2015, the petitioner started living separately from his wife from 29.04.2015. It is further stated that FIR in this case was registered on 29.09.2016 and prior to that the petitioner had been appearing before the CAW Cell at every stage as and when he was asked to appear before CAW Cell. Even the articles of the complainant as recorded in the seizure memo have been returned. Petitioner has already joined the investigation on 13.02.2017, 08.03.2017, 03.04.2017 and is cooperating with the investigation and there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner, yet the petitioner has been served with a police notice on 03.04.2017 to appear before the police at the Model Town Police Station for arrest. Thereafter the petitioner approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Rohini Courts, Delhi, by way of bail application seeking anticipatory bail, and the same by order dated 19.05.2017 was rejected by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this court for anticipatory bail.