Viresh Kumar v. State

ORDER

11.11.2011 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

¶1These are three bail applications filed by the petitioners, Om Prakash and Premlata, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, Ms.Nisha, sister-in-law, Mr.Sunil Kumar, brother-in-law and Viresh Kumar, husband of the complainant in respect of FIR No.227/2011 u/s 498A/406/34 IPG registered by PS Mehrauli.

¶2It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2/complainant has already given in writing on 05.06.2010 that all her dowry articles have been collected by her from the matrimonial home and in case the same is misplaced, parents-in-law would not be responsible for the same. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended since this is a matrimonial dispute the respondent No.2/complainant has registered the FIR with a view to blackmail the present petitioners.

¶3Having regard to the facts of the case and the fact that the respondent No.2/complainant has already given in writing that all the jewellery and dowry articles have already been collected by her, I am inclined to admit the petitioners to anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest. Accordingly, all the petitioners in the event of their arrest shall^released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ?25,000/-with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of lO/SHO. This shall be subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation as and when called upon by the 10.

(ii) They shall not threaten the complainant and the witnesses,

(iii) They shall not change their place of residence and shall not leave the National Capital Region of Delhi without the permission of Court.

(iv) Petitioners shall also keep their mobile number available with the 10.

¶4The benefit of anticipatory bail will be available to the petitioners till the filing of the charge-sheet.

¶5Petitions stand disposed of. V.K. SHALI, J NOVEMBER 11, 2011 mr .

V * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % BAILAPPLN. 1072/2011 OM PRAKASH &ANR Through; Petitioners l^r.S.K.Balain and l^r. S.K.Baroha, Advocates. versus STATE Through: BAILAPPLN. 1073/2011 Respondent |V|r.Navin Sharma, APP. |V|r.Vil<as Yadav, Advocate for complainant. ASI Cyan Prabha, PS l^ehrauli. NISHA @NITU SHARMA & ANR Petitioners Through: l^r.S.K.Balaln and Mr. S.K.Baroha, Advocates. versus STATE Respondent Through: l^r.Navin Sharma, APP. Mr.Vikas Yadav, Advocate for complainant. BAILAPPLN. 1074/2011 VIRESH KUMAR Petitioner Through: Mr.S.K.Balain and Mr. S.K.Baroha, Advocates. STATE versus Respondent Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, APP. Mr.Vikas Yadav, Advocate for complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI