Akhil Gera v. State

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J. DECEMBER 4, 2017 /gr//

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order reserved on: 17th November, 2017 Order pronounced on: 4th December, 2017 + BAIL APPLN. 428/2017 ANIL GERA ….Petitioner Through: Mr. Prashant Sharma, Mr. Kartik Khanna Advocates. Versus STATE …..Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State with W/ASI Parvati, P.S. Subhash Place Mr. B.S. Rana, Mr. Satyam Sisodia and Mr. Manish Awasthi Advocates for Complainant. + BAIL APPLN. 429/2017 AKHIL GERA ….Petitioner Through: Mr. Prashant Sharma, Mr. Kartik Khanna Advocates. Versus STATE …..Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State with W/ASI Parvati, P.S. Subhash Place Mr. B.S. Rana, Mr. Satyam Sisodia and Mr. Manish Awasthi Advocates for Complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL 1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred 'Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner seeks grant of Anticipatory Bail in FIR No. 35/2017 under Sections 498A/406/354/377/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station Subhash Place, New Delhi. 2. The brief facts of the case are that after getting married to Mr. Akhil Gera on 22.11.2015, the complainant was subjected to mental torture by the petitioners for bringing insufficient dowry and substandard articles. After returning from her honeymoon in Australia, she was repeatedly asked to bring more cash, a Rolex watch, plot, jewellery etc from her father. At the time of marriage, the complainant was pursuing her architecture course from Pearl Academy, Naraina, New Delhi and was assured that there would be no objection in her study post marriage. However, the petitioners refused to pay the college fees of Rs. 5.25 Lakhs which was eventually paid by the father of the complainant. The complainant also states that she was subjected to un-natural sex without her consent by her husband and that her father in law, Mr. Anil Gera tortured her physically, sexually and mentally. 3. Mr. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the prosecution's story is a concocted story which arose due to the friendship of the complainant with Archit Kawatra, wherein they chatted till late nights and he visited their house when the complainant was alone at home, to which the petitioner had objections; that Section 377 and 354 IPC is an afterthought and an advancement to the F.I.R. which were registered when the family of the petitioner declined to bow down to unreasonable demands of money by the father of the complainant. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioners live in a well knit family with their permanent residence in Delhi due to which their chances of fleeing from the hands of justice are negated and thus Anticipatory Bail be granted. 5. Per Contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted the that the petitioner is not liable to be granted Anticipatory Bail as he has been actively involved in the commission of a serious offence which is cognizable and non-bailable. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record. 7. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 lays down the legal provisions regarding Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:- "Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand f