- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 13 November 2017
- Bench
- Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
- Case no.
- BAIL APPLN. 852/2017
Judgment
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J NOVEMBER 13, 2017//gr
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Order Reserved on: 8th November, 2017 Order Pronounced on:13th November, 2017 AKSHAY KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Rita Kumar and Ms. Sonam Nagrath Kohli, Advocates. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ....Respondent Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP for the State Mr. Manish Vashist, 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 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.18/2017 under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station, Pandav Nagar, New Delhi. Status Report is on record. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that, on 14.01.2017 a complaint was lodged by one Nisha against her husband Akshay Kumar/present-petitioner, wherein she alleged that she was kidnapped by the petitioners and his family members at Begusaray in Bihar in the month of May 2016; that although a complaint was lodged by her father to the Police Station of Nagar in Begusaray, however no action was taken; that thereafter the complainant's father moved an application before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusaray, upon which a compromise was arrived at between the family members of both the petitioner and the complainant and their marriage was solemnized on 16.05.2016 in Begusaray; that at the time of marriage the complainant's parents gave dowry articles to the petitioner's family as per their status; that soon after the marriage, the behaviour of the petitioner and his family changed towards the complainant and they started hurling abuses and making cast based comments upon the complainant and his family members; that the petitioner showed his dissatisfaction on the dowry articles received during marriage and demanded Rs. 5 lakhs and one motorcycle from the complainant; that at that time the complainant did not lodge any complaint under the fear of the petitioner and his family members as they threatened her that they would get the petitioner married elsewhere; that thereafter the complainant was sent back to her paternal house without any cogent reason; that on 18.07.2016 at about 8 p.m. the petitioner came to the complainant's house and started abusing her and also tried to hit her for getting his demands fulfilled; that hence thereafter the present complaint was lodged. 3. Ms. Rita Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and all the allegations so made by the complainant are totally false and concocted, to humiliate and harass the petitioner and his family; that the petitioner and the complainant knew each other forone year and the marriage was a love marriage; that the petitioner is a Civil Engineering student and so his father had arranged for a separate rented accommodation for him and the complainant; that the complainant stayed with the petitioner only for 2 months after marriage and thereafter she returned to her maternal home; that the complainant herself demanded Rs 5 Lakhs from the petitioner to dissolve the present marriage and threatened to harass and humiliate him and his family if her demands were not fulfilled; that the complainant has also alleged false kidnapping charges against the petitioner; that no demand was ever made by the petitioner or his family members as alleged by the complainant; that the mother of the petitioner has lodged a complaint dated 08.10.2016 of the erratic behaviour of the complainant; that the complainant is already married to one Arjun Das with whom her marriage has not been dissolved till date; that the petitioner has been joining investigation as and when required and called for; that there is no likelihood of the petitioner either absconding or fleeing from justice; that the petitioner undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions tha
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.