Ajay Yadav v. State & Anr

ORDER o/o

08.10.2012 These two applicationshave been filed by the husbandand sister-in-law of the complainantrespectivelyseeking anticipatoiybail mcase FIR No.132/2012,underSections498A/406/34IPG,P.S. VasantKunj. RATL APPLN. 1163/2012 In this order,IwoulddisposeofBail ApplicationNo.1163/2012filed by the husbandof the complainanti.e. Ajay Yadav. It is submittedthat in compliancewith the directionsofthis Court,the petitionerhas broughtpay order in the sum ofRs.4 lacs which is in the name ofthe complainant.The pay order has been handed over to the complainanttoday in Court. The complainant/respondentNo.2 is directedto open an accountin the name of the minor child Sahil under her guardianship.This amountshall be kept m the form ofFDR and the interestso accruedthereonshallbe utilizedfor the welfare of the minor child. The sum of Rs.4 lacs so received by the complainantfrom the petitionerAjay Yadav i.e. her husband, shall be withoutprejudiceto the rights and contentionsof the parties in any legal proceedings and subject to adjustment to any amount payable by the petitionerto the complainantor the minorchildduringthe legalproceedmgs in future, if any. The petitionerAjay Yadav is a Commanderin Indian Navy and is seeking anticipatory bail in the above case. The marital status of the petitionerand the complainantat the time of their marriagewas that of a divorcee.The marriagehas takenplacelongbackon 23.04.2003. Takinginto considerationthe natureofthe offencei.e. underSections 498A/406/34IPC and that there is no chance of petitionerfleeing from justice,the factthatthe marriagebetweenthe partiestookplacemorethan9 years ago, I find it to be afit case to enlargethe petitioneron anticipatory bail. Accordingly,in the event of arrest of the petitionerAjay Yadav, he shallbe admittedto anticipatorybailon his furnishingapersonalbondin the sum ofRs.50,000/-with one suretyin the like amount'tothe satisfactionof the concernedlO/SHO.The petitionershall, however,join investigationas and when directed by the 10. rrl.M.A.No.17588/2012 By this application moved under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the applicant/respondentNo.2 seeks initiation of proceedings against the petitionerfor havingcommittedthe offenceofperjuryby intentionallymis statingand swearingafalse affidavitbeforethe Court. Since this Court is dealingonly with the anticipatorybail application of the petitioner, the present application seeking initiation of perjury proceedingsagainstthe petitioneris misconceivedand the same is hereby dismissed. rrl.M.A.Nos.13469-13470/2012 (Exemption) in—MIL— 1150/2012 Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions. Applicationsstanddisposedof. RATT. APPLN. 1150/2012 In this order,I woulddisposeofBail ApplicationNo.l150/2012filed by the sister-in-lawofthe complainanti.e. UrmilaYadav. The petitionerUrmilaYadavis real sisterofAjayYadav,petitionerin Bail Application No.1163/2012. As per averments made in the bail apphcation,she was marriedon 08.05.1984i.e. almost 19 years priorto the marriageof the complainantwith her brother. She is residingseparatelyin Gurgaonwithher husband. On behalfofthe complainant,it has been submittedthatthe jewellery articles are lying with the petitioner,as admitted by Ajay Yadav mhis writingthatthe articlesare lyingwithDad and Didi and on this scoreprayer for grantofanticipatorybailhas beenopposed. On behalfofthe petitioner,it has beensubmittedthatthiswritingis m the handwritingof the complainantherselfas Ajay Yadav being mIndian Navy, left blank signedpapers with his wife which have been misusedby the complainant.The petitionerdenies being in possessionof any of the articles of the complainant. Taking into considerationthe nature of allegations and that the petitionerUrmilaYadav is marriedsister-in-lawof the complainantliving separatelyfrom them, Ifind it to be afit case to enlargethe petitioneron anticipatorybail. Accordingly,in the eventofarrestofthe petitionerUrmilaYadav,she shall be admittedto anticipatorybail on her fUmishingapersonalbond in the sum ofRs.50,000/-withone suretyin the like amountto the satisfaction of the concernedlO/SHO.The petitionershall,however,join investigation as and when directed by the 10. Boththe bail applicationsstanddisposedof. Acopyofthis orderbe givendastito the counselfor the petitioner,as prayed. ^ PsfeflBHA^ANI,J OCTOBER 08,2012 'dc'

V $-5 &6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1163/2012 AJAY YAD AV ••••• . Through;Dr.AmanHingoramwithMs.bwati Sumbly, Advocates. versus STATE&ANR Respondents Through:Ms.RajdipaBehura,APP for State/R-l. Mr.RajivKataria,Advocatefor R-2/complainant. AND + BAIL APPLN. 1150/2012 URMILAYADAV P^titio^ Through:Dr.AmanHingoramwithMs.Swati Sumbly, Advocates. versus STATE&ANR Respondents Through;Ms.RajdipaBehura,APP tor State/R-l. Mr.RajivKataria,Advocatefor R-2/complainant CORAM: HON'BLEMS. JUSTICEPRATIBHARANI